Rosenthal calls “stAy” crowd flat-earthers

Another week, another media morsel. If it’s not the Giants leaking information out or Larry Baer defending the Giants’ territorial rights claims, it’s a national sports writer pleading Lew Wolff’s case or Lew himself answering questions. To me, it feels more like slow-motion tennis than baseball, and while I like tennis, this has gotten repetitive and tiresome.

This time it’s Fox Sports’ Ken Rosenthal again with a plan to resolve the A’s-Giants impasse. Rosenthal thinks that the Giants should be guaranteed a minimum revenue amount against potential losses incurred from an A’s-to-San Jose move. He cites the O’s-Nats deal as an example. However, while Peter Angelos got a $360 million sale price guarantee and $75 million to start up MASN, I don’t believe that he got an annual revenue guarantee ($130 million) as Rosenthal suggests. There’s a good deal of conflicting information on this. It’s sort of a moot point because the O’s cleared the supposed minimum in the first year of the agreement, 2005, and haven’t looked back. Forbes’ estimated revenue for 2011 was $179 million.

Guaranteeing revenue for the Giants is a different matter. According to Forbes, the Giants haven’t been below the $200 million revenue mark in three years. Last year the Giants were in the top ten at $230 million, whereas the average revenue was $211 million (median: $201 million). I have to think that MLB, in its desperation to get some kind of deal done, has floated a revenue guarantee number to the Giants, to which Baer has balked. I’ve argued frequently for some kind of compensation plan that includes revenue, but a revenue guarantee of $230 million gives me pause, so I imagine it gives Bud Selig and the other owners pause as well. Then again, Wolff is projecting a bump from $150-160 million to $230 million for the A’s, so for baseball the result should be a net positive.

Rosenthal also talked to Tulane law professor Gabe Feldman about the prospects of an offensive antitrust lawsuit against baseball. Feldman characterized such a suit’s chances as very slim, a “real longshot”. Also ready with a quote was San Jose City Councilman and future mayoral hopeful Sam Liccardo, who may see all of this baseball posturing end up as part of his election platform if the saga continues at its current pace.

The sucker punch is saved for the end:

Only a few hardy souls — a latter-day version of the flat-earth society — believe the Athletics still can make it in Oakland. San Jose is the largest city in the Bay Area. A new ballpark in the city not only would transform the Athletics’ business model, but baseball’s as well.

There will be some Oakland defenders who say things like, “If you tell a lie long enough people believe it”. No, that’s not it. Sometimes a spade is a spade. If it wasn’t the case, Oakland wouldn’t be pinning its urban revival hopes on a pie-in-the-sky plan like Coliseum City. If it wasn’t truthful, Signature wouldn’t be trying to offload O29 on any Tom, Dick, or Harry who might be interested in land. It’s telling that one of the chief pro-Oakland arguments is that baseball doesn’t have the wherewithal to change T-rights on Wolff’s behalf. That’s all well and good, but how is that confidence-inspiring for Oakland?

59 thoughts on “Rosenthal calls “stAy” crowd flat-earthers

  1. Damn you put threads together late RM! I guess I read them late as well. I say 1) a guaranteed franchise value of $700 million and 2) guaranteed revenue levels from the year Cisco Field opens to 2017. Once the Giants annual mortgage payments for AT&T Park sunset in 2017, their main reason for holding on to T-Rights will be over (an automatic savings of $20 million annually). If Baer and company still “balk,” MLB and Selig can tell them to @#$%& off! Get the hell out of the way, because the A’s are going to SJ! For the record, Rosenthal also appears on the MLB Network; id say his credibility trumps Maddens. But again, I don’t think this piece will cause a pathetic stir like the Madden garbage. Good night (or early morning).

  2. ML – One interesting point you noted was that last year the Gnats were in the top 10 in revenue. What if the compromise wasn’t necessarily a specific amount, but one that ensured that they would always be in the top 10 for at least 20 years or something to that affect?

  3. I’d like to see what other anti-trust professors say about T-Rights. Sure, it’s been awhile since anyone has challenged them, but that doesn’t mean they’re still valid.

  4. @Tony D

    Madden also wrote a piece saying that Joba Chamberlain’s likely career-ending injury was his own fault. I have more faith in KR when it comes to any issue that requires basic human understanding and empathy.

  5. The question I think if Baer has balked at a Revenue guarantee number is was it number or idea he balked at? If the latter how would you force Gnats to negotiate?

  6. This is a total aside but did you guys see this Monte Poole article on Coco still being mad about the move to LF? Joe Stiglich posted it on twitter. https://twitter.com/#!/joestiglich/status/183490582730125312

    Not sure if this is Coco still venting or rather Monte looking for a drama to keep pushing?

  7. On the anti-trust issue- isn’t the fact MLB was worried about Tampa Bay challenging it after the failed move of the gints in the ’90’s why we have a TB team today? Somebody was worried enough to appease that group….

  8. I know it’s off topic but the Monte Poole piece is pretty damn good. It captures the very reason why Bob Melvin is awesome and a huge upgrade over Bob Geren, it captures how good of a teammate/veteran presence Coco Crisp has become… Coco’s reasons for being upset are valid and he is focusing on what he can control: becoming a good Left Fielder.
    .
    One of my favorite parts of the last two seasons has been watching Coco make some unbelievable plays in Center Field. I fear his move to Left means that he will be the first guy ANY team that loses a Center Fielder during the season will target in a trade. But if so, go run ’em down where ever you may roam, Coco.

  9. If Oakland worked, MLB would already be pursuing a plan, either prodding Wolff to do it or having the team sold to other interests. But there’s been no movement and no plan – 3+ years after MLB began studying ballpark opportunities in the A’s current territory. One of these days, MLB is going to have to come clean that there simply is no feasible way to get a new ballpark done in the A’s territory. And the longstanding Oakland-only crowd’s plan – have some billionaires generously build a ballpark without regard to whether it’s a sound investment or not – is not feasible. It’s pure fantasy, actually.

  10. @cuppingmaster “I’d like to see what other anti-trust professors say about T-Rights. Sure, it’s been awhile since anyone has challenged them, but that doesn’t mean they’re still valid.”
    .
    The question isn’t about T-rights, it’s about the antitrust exemption protecting those T-rights. The AE is protected by 70 years of Supreme Court precedent, three separate Supreme Court decisions, endorsement by every Federal Circuit Court to consider it (i.e. the ones that actually make binding precedent), a statutory endorsement of the results of those cases, and academic commentary.
    .
    Personally, I’d love to see the AE overturned, and there are good public policy arguments for doing so. However, public policy arguments usually lose when there is mass of outstanding precedent, as here (and especially where there is a Congressional endorsement of the law). The AE is EXTREMELY unlikely to be overturned short of an act of Congress.
    .
    hose who are saying a lawsuit seeking to overturn the T-rights has a “good chance” are basically the flip side of the “stAy” crowd – they think wishing for something hard enough can make it happen.

  11. @GoAs “On the anti-trust issue- isn’t the fact MLB was worried about Tampa Bay challenging it after the failed move of the gints in the ’90′s why we have a TB team today? Somebody was worried enough to appease that group….”
    .
    An equally plausible reason for the Piazza settlement was simply avoiding the cost of an extended trial. As I recall, Piazza didn’t get the Tampa Bay team, he got a nuisance value cash settlement that could be easily justified in terms of avoided legal fees. And I’ll point out again: The law has changed since the Piazza case, as Congress basically endorsed the AE as applied to franchise location. I don’t see it happening without an Act of Congress.
    .
    Which is why I’ve said, if people really wanted to put pressure on MLB, Congressional hearings would be far more effective than a lawsuit.

  12. bartleby, out of curiosity, do you know what the grounds those precedents were made under? It likely doesn’t matter, but theoretically, would it still stand up if it could be proven that basis for those precedents has changed?

  13. Well, as of 1240 local time, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING on the Rosenthal piece from the greater media (unlike the BS from Madden a few weeks back). Field of Schemes, Biz of Baseball, sfgate, ballpark digest, Google news…NOTHING! In a way, that’s a good thing; wouldn’t want we had going on here for nearly two weeks to happen again. But it is a head scratcher that Rosenthal piece is ignored unlike Maddens. Oh well, when I catch Rosenthal later on on the MLB Network I’ll have a huge smile on my face.
    Re AE and a lawsuit: first of all, don’t think it will come down to it. But if the A’s were kept out of SJ proper, it would most likely be on the grounds that MLB felt it necessary as to not hurt the Giants financially. If somehow San Jose filed a lawsuit against the AE and MLB, wouldn’t MLB have to open the books and provide hard proof that the A’s in San Jose would hurt the Giants? Don’t think SJ could ever bring down the AE; they could however make the prospect of open books make MLB reconsider the Giants selfish, anti-competitive position.
    Again, won’t come down to it because THE DEAL will be made.

  14. This article is a clear plant by the a’s pr dpt and should be taken with a grain of salt

  15. Thx bartleby- always appreciate your insight- in tha case Congress has much more important things to do-

  16. @Dinosaur Jr. I see what you did there.

  17. >>> Jeffrey writes “I know it’s off topic but the Monte Poole piece is pretty damn good”<<>>PJK writes “If Oakland worked, MLB would already be pursuing a plan,”>>>
    Very good point. We all know that the A’s to SJ question hasn’t been put to voters of SJ because of the TR hurdle. Yet why hasn’t MLB simply worked out a deal with Oakland? They could have by now, they would have by now if they thought it was viable. MLB hasn’t moved forward with Oakland because, as I’ve said a 100 times, the A’s leaving Oakland is all but a done deal.
    >>>Bartleby writes “The AE is protected by 70 years of Supreme Court precedent, three separate Supreme Court decisions, endorsement by every Federal Circuit Court to consider it”<<>>GoA’s writes “Congress has much more important things to do”<<<< You were being sarcastic weren't you?

  18. @GoA’s– it wasn’t fear of a court decision against the AE that caused MLB to placate Tampa Bay. It was the threat of a congressional effort to overturn it, particularly by Florida’s Sen. Bob Graham. San Jose can’t really play that card, since California’s senators obviously represent Oak and SF as well, and in the House of Representatives the entire Bay Area delegation is essentially irrelevant.
    .
    Plus, the REAL motivation behind MLB’s short-sighted decision to add marginal markets Tampa Bay and Arizona in the mid-1990s had nothing to do with antitrust concerns. The owners wanted the windfall of expansion fees to tide them over during the Strike.

  19. Rosenthal’s article is what happens when there’s nothing to report. We’re in a vacuum right now, at least until the start of the season or even May. We should let actual news push the agenda, instead of letting someone’s agenda create the news.

  20. @Freddy,
    Big difference between the Rosenthal and Madden/M&R pieces. Rosenthal, as a FOX analalyst and “insider” for MLB Network, was giving his professional opinion re the A’s and Giants and a deal for San Jose (using Orioles/Expos/DC as a template). That’s LEGIT! Madden and M&R on the other hand gave us wild, bias speculation that was later debunked by MLB and Wolff himself. Yes, while both pieces came out during the same void, one was highly professional while the others were complete nonsense.

  21. @Tony D. Really? I don’t mean to give you crap, but the article you agree with is professional and the one you don’t is a sham? Bill Madden is a member of the Baseball Writers Association of America, he was on the Historical Overview Committee of the Baseball Hall of Fame, he’s had several baseball books published, etc. He seems to be pretty well respected.

  22. @eb
    REALLY! All those “credentials” you threw out for Madden didn’t stop Wolff and MLB from debunking his piece now did it. I would also think that currently Rosenthal has a more inside sense of what’s going on now then Madden, hence him offering solutions rather than simply stirring up crap. I rest my case..

  23. @bartleby – Indeed, Congressional pressure changes everything. I don’t think Feinstein/Boxer or the SJ-area House Reps have said anything one way or another on this question, right?

  24. @EB agreen.
    Mark Purdy is a shill like no other for Lew Wolff yet gets put on a pedestal around here like he’s Grantland Rice himself. The double standards by the commenters around this blog are gross.

  25. Wow! It appears that the flat-Earth commentary from Rosenthal really got to some of the remaining Oakland-only folk here; oh well. Again, professional OPINION or throwing out false story’s: its not about “double standards”, its about standards of reporting.

  26. Tony, Rosenthal offered zero news in that piece. It was all fluff and nothing special. He comes from Fox, which shows that it could just as easily be a “favor for info” deal with the A’s as much as a “Fox smells money” bias. Not saying it is or it isn’t. Just that there was nothing offered in the piece that was news. And nothing offered in the piece that was new. Putting that piece on some sort of pedestal acting like it has any meaning is just as bad as trying to take Madden or M&R seriously.

  27. @dmoas,
    I never said that Rosenthal offered any “news”! Read his piece again: he offered a detailed, professional opinion on how a deal could be worked out between the A’s and Giants for SJ. Yeah, he comes from Fox, but he’s also a current insider at MLB Network. I’d rather have the media provide constructive opinion any day over “Enquirer-like” story’s from Madden and M&R. But whatever, believe what you wish..

  28. I have a very high reading level and every time I read the Curt Flood Act for the life of me I cannot understand how this Act actually “helps” MLB in protecting their AE when it comes to Franchise relocation.

    The whole point of the Curt Flood Act was to “repeal” certain powers of the MLB AE to put them in line with the other sports to protect the players…..Not to protect them for further ridicule as how does that make sense?

    “SEC. 27. (a) Subject to subsections (b) through (d), the conduct, acts, practices, or agreements of persons in the business of organized professional major league baseball directly relating to or affecting employment of major league baseball players to play baseball at the major league level are subject to the antitrust laws to the same extent such conduct, acts, practices, or agreements would be subject to the antitrust laws if engaged in by persons in any other professional sports business affecting interstate commerce.”

    This paragraph below states that anything in sections (b) through (d) are in fact subject to the same Anti-Trust laws as the other professional sports whether it “directly relates or affects the employment of MLB players to play baseball”.

    In section (b) paragraph (3):

    “(3) any conduct, acts, practices, or agreements of persons engaging in, conducting or participating in the business of organized professional baseball relating to or affecting franchise expansion, location or relocation, franchise ownership issues, including ownership transfers, the relationship between the Office of the Commissioner and franchise owners, the marketing or sales of the entertainment product of organized professional baseball and the licensing of intellectual property rights owned or held by organized professional baseball teams individually or collectively;”

    This paragraph states directly that Franchise relocation is in fact subject to the same anti-trust laws as the other sports….Albeit it does seem strange why this would be included to “protect the players”….that part boggles my mind.

    It would seem, at least to me, that the “players” could challenge T-rights in court because it does in fact affect them by keeping the A’s in Oakland rather than letting them move to San Jose where the players would have better opportunity to make $$.

    The players would have to challenge the AE or at least be a part of the lawsuit with San Jose and then I believe based on the information above that would be a legitimate case without involving Congress.

    Why in reality would Franchise relocation be put into this act in this text? I believe it is because of the precedent set by Al Davis and Donald Sterling in the 1980s. In no way does this Act state that Franchise Relocation IS NOT subject to the same Anti-Trust laws as the other sports.

    Interesting stuff………Of course San Jose would need the MLBPA to support the lawsuit if my theory holds true,.

  29. @Sid – the idea behind congressional pressure is that it’s more direct (if not more pie-in-the-sky). Court cases take forever, and there is precedent involved, and lots of other messiness. Say — again, wild idea — that Congress threatens an anti-trust exemption repeal over this. That would all but force a deal to be cut in short order, likely one in the A’s favor.

  30. “I have a very high reading level and every time I read the Curt Flood Act for the life of me I cannot understand how this Act actually “helps” MLB in protecting their AE when it comes to Franchise relocation.”
    .
    @Sid: It has to be read in context. Right or wrong, the Supreme Court’s precedent on antitrust and baseball is very longstanding. Originally, baseball was deemed exempt because it is not interstate commerce. Despite the judiciary’s later vast expansion of the commerce clause, the Supreme Court held in the 1970s that because the baseball exemption is longstanding precedent, it can be overturned only by specific legislation.
    .
    When Congress wrote the Curt Flood Act to state, “No court shall rely on the enactment of this section as a basis for changing the application of the antitrust laws to …franchise expansion, location or relocation, franchise ownership issues, including ownership transfers, the relationship between the Office of the Commissioner and franchise owners….” they made it clear that the CFA was NOT the legislative repeal of the antitrust exemption that Supreme Court had already said was necessary to overturn the judicial precedent.
    .
    This is why an antitrust lawsuit against MLB would only be a last ditch effort to save a hopeless cause. It would be expensive, time consuming, and almost certainly unsuccessful. The likelier path to success is by working within MLB’s system, as frustrating as that can be.

  31. As an OAKLAND A’s fan let’s discuss the biggest MYTH propagated by the Pro San Jose party, San Jose is a larger city than Oakland. San Jose technically is the largest city in the Bay Area. Unfortunately, the population density of San Jose is 5300 people per square mile while the population density of Oakland is 7004 people per square mile. A San Jose City limit sign is on the 101 at Coyote Creek Golf Course. Are you kidding me????? If San Jose counts that as part of the city, let’s include Emeryville, Berkeley, Piedmont, San Leandro, and Alameda to Oakland’s population numbers.

    Keep poaching San Jose.

    • As an OAKLAND A’s fan let’s discuss the biggest MYTH propagated by the Pro San Jose party, San Jose is a larger city than Oakland. San Jose technically is the largest city in the Bay Area. Unfortunately, the population density of San Jose is 5300 people per square mile while the population density of Oakland is 7004 people per square mile.

      Thank you for demonstrating the difference between facts and truths. Even if San Jose is approved, there’s no guarantee San Jose is the high payroll promise land some make it out to be. However, it’s the best option on the table, isn’t it? the A’s ballpark search is a matter of what’s available, not what we want.

  32. @J. West – Read the table below and tell me what is a myth:

    That info is based on estimates prior to the 2010 Census, and has only gotten worse for Oakland since the city lost around 10,000 residents. If there’s a myth, it’s that Oakland and its “suburbs” are significantly more dense than San Jose. They’re not.

  33. So, J. West, if Oakland is so feasible for a new ballpark, why hasn’t MLB done anything to make a new ballpark there happen? We know MLB absolutely doesn’t want to change territorial rights and does not want teams to move. Yet, after three years of studying ballpark opportunities in the A’s current territory (the specific mission of the MLB committee formed by Selig), MLB has nothing, nada, zip to report. We know MLB absolutely does not want the A’s continuing to fester in an empty football stadium, requiring $30 million subsidies every year. Yet, there’s no plan for a new ballpark in Oakland. Wolff is not being told to make Oakland work or to sell. How could this be if Oakland is such a viable place for a ballpark under the parameters set by the City of Oakland (as in, the city spends $0.00 on construction, A’s owners take 100% of the risks)?

  34. Again, Oakland-only advocates don’t offer any viable plan for getting a new ballpark done in Oakland. It’s just the usual San Jose-bashing. Of course, MLB can’t come up with a plan, either.

  35. Where in my post did I say Oakland was feasible for a new stadium pjk? Where in my previous post do I say San Jose is not feasible?

    My post was about population density of cities, not about the feasibility of building a stadium.

    And thank you for the table Marine Layer, you just proved my point. Should we add Dublin, or Livermore, or Pleasanton, or Walnut Creek to that table also so square mileage is equal? Your table already shows that the population density is higher in the East Bay than San Jose without adding any other cities to it. And maybe Oakland lost 10,000 people at the last census, but San Leandro is now 3000 more than in your table, Alameda 1500 more, and Berkeley 10,000 more as their population is now over 112,000 people, all the while San Jose’s population has dropped more than 40,000 people to 959,000! I’m sorry but if you want to use your table as a rebuttal to my claim, let’s make it up-to-date.

    The facts are this: When MLB shills like Ken Rosenthal and Mark Purdy spout off on how BIG San Jose is they neglect to take into account population density. And that is no MYTH!

    • @J. West – You’re missing the point. The difference between the two is a whopping 1 person every 2 acres. That’s trivial, not significant.

      If you want to add Tri-Valley, go ahead. At 3,000/sq. mi., that’ll drop the average down. You might as well add the Lamorinda area as well since it’s closer to Oakland despite being in another county. Adding that drops density even further.

      My reference to Oakland’s drop in population is in comparison to the 2000 Census. San Jose increased. You mig want to read up on this before spouting off supposed “facts”.

  36. Wow! Anyhow, GO SHARKS!!

  37. Here is a fact direct from the US Census Bureau’s website. 2010 San Jose California Population is 945,942. Your table has San Jose’s population listed as 1,006,892. It seems to be about a 60,000 person difference does it not? I have read up on the facts Marine Layer. And your previous post proves my point once again. San Jose is not larger than the East Bay when similar square mileage is used.

    I appreciate your site Marine Layer and love these spirited debates. But I am presenting facts. And the facts are this. MLB will not get the Giants to relinquish their T-rights and the other MLB owners will not vote for it. They have stalled their “Blue Ribbon Panel” for 3 years until a local Oakland buyer could be found. Selig will then broker a deal to sell the A’s to local ownership for over $300M which will give Lew Wolff and the Fisher family a nice profit for basically running the franchise into the ground.

  38. Rosenthal really nailed it with the “flat earth” comparison.

  39. @J West – Did you notice the date on my post? 3/26/10, exactly two years ago. Right about the time the Census survey work started. The official figures did not get posted until a year later. You’re assailing me on info? You didn’t even bother to look up anything besides the most basic info before you started. At least what I wrote was a snapshot at that moment.

    I see why you’re struggling with this. You’ve mixed up facts with assertions, strategy with blind hope. And you changed subjects, a clear sign you’re losing the debate. Maybe next time, pal.

    Since you’re interested, here’s an updated table with 2010 Census figures. These are as close as I can get in terms of total comparable area. I can add Richmond and El Cerrito if you like, but they won’t help your argument.

  40. ouch…

  41. Wow Marine Layer, I didn’t realize you’d get so upset over this. Let me state once again the purpose of my post. My purpose was to bring to light the fact that MLB journalists like Ken Rosenthal continue to use the argument that San Jose is much more populous than the Oakland area and therefore the A’s have a better chance of succeeding there. My “basic” facts alone prove that he is false and your tables continue to prove my point. I’m not losing the debate, I am stating facts for which you have so graciously provided illustrations. Your illustrations continue to show the East Bay’s higher population density. Isn’t that what I’ve been saying all along?

  42. Isn’t J Wests’s primary issue with the idea that San Jose is being presented as a huge city, when if area and density are taken into account, Northern Alameda County is in actuality larger, even if it is by a smallish margin? Why is that controversial?

  43. Thank you eb.

  44. @eb/J West – When Piedmont, Hayward, etc., decide to be incorporated into Oakland, then Oakland can beat its chest. Right now it’s suffering the indignity of a city within its own city limits wanting no part of that kind of governance. Oakland has never done a stadium deal on its own. It has always relied on a partnership with Alameda County.

    You might as well complain about Phoenix, Dallas, and Houston, since San Jose has more density than those and two other cities in the top 10.

  45. @ML I don’t think the issue is about beating one’s chest. It’s more about the perception that San Jose, the city that is vying for Oakland’s team and a city that’s in the same region, is being positioned as being significantly larger population wise than the A’s current location. Now San Jose/Santa Clara has a lot going for it that the East Bay struggles with, but population/density really isn’t something that is a problem.

  46. @eb – You shouldn’t be taking issue with me. You should be taking issue with an Oakland partisan who writes falsehoods like:

    …let’s discuss the biggest MYTH propagated by the Pro San Jose party, San Jose is a larger city than Oakland.

    Generally it’s been Oakland partisans who, in trying to prop up their fair city, discount San Jose’s size (population and area) and point to population density to show that Oakland is a more “urban” than “suburban” San Jose. There’s no argument there. Oakland is more dense, San Jose is larger. Don’t try to make some judgement that Oakland’s density makes it more worthy or important. 5 of the top 10 cities in the US (14 out of the top 20) are less dense than San Jose. Oakland is not more or less relevant because of that. It’s just a statistic.

  47. It’s ok for us not to agree Marine Layer. I have stated my case and others have agreed. I just don’t care for biased reporting from national writers like Ken Rosenthal. I think people should have all the facts whether they agree with me or not.

  48. @ML “Don’t try to make some judgement that Oakland’s density makes it more worthy or important. 5 of the top 10 cities in the US (14 out of the top 20) are less dense than San Jose. Oakland is not more or less relevant because of that. It’s just a statistic.”
    Understood. But wouldn’t the “San Jose is the 10th largest city” arguing point that is often used to diminish Oakland fall into the category you just described? I think that was the issue that set J.West off initially and is something I’ve seen used many times by certain hardliner SJ types. Either way, you’re right, they are just statistics and things will play out based on a bunch of completely different factors.

  49. @eb – San Jose has shown it has the sort of big city political machine necessary to get big projects done: HP Pavilion, Convention Center, MLK Library, lobbying for HSR, and more. That’s harder to quantify than a simple metric such as population, yet it’s apparent in cities that are either large or are clearly their market’s population centers. San Jose is that now. Oakland was at one time. It remains to be seen if it can be again.

    @J West – Oakland is the incumbent, the status quo for now. It has great history, especially with the A’s. But there are few quantifiable aspects Oakland can claim it has better than San Jose. That’s not biased. That’s the simple truth.

  50. @JWest “Unfortunately, the population density of San Jose is 5300 people per square mile while the population density of Oakland is 7004 people per square mile. A San Jose City limit sign is on the 101 at Coyote Creek Golf Course. Are you kidding me????? If San Jose counts that as part of the city, let’s include Emeryville, Berkeley, Piedmont, San Leandro, and Alameda to Oakland’s population numbers.”
    .
    You’re missing the point in a big way here. The fact that San Jose city limits extend so far beyond the populated area is exactly why Oakland has greater density.
    .
    Anyway, density is irrelevant. As has been posted by ML and Jeffrey many times before, MLB teams draw primarily from a twenty mile radius of the ballpark. Oakland and San Jose have similar populations within that twenty mile radius. The only reason why we keep hearing this density statistic from Oakland-only’ers is that it’s one of the few statistics that favor Oakland, relevant or not.
    .
    Also, you ignore the fact that there is a second team sharing basically the same geographic area. So if your point really were “greater population closer by,” you should cut that density figure in half, at least, to reflect potential customers lost to the Giants.
    .
    Really, if there is a relevant “density” figure it’s “premium seat target customers per square mile.” Those are the customers that are needed to build a privately financed ballpark, and that account for virtually all team profit. And San Jose would win that statistic by an order of magnitude.

  51. ” As has been posted by ML and Jeffrey many times before, MLB teams draw primarily from a twenty mile radius of the ballpark. Oakland and San Jose have similar populations within that twenty mile radius.”
    .
    This is EXACTLY my point. How can population density be irrelevant? Wouldn’t the population density of each 20 mile radius be more important than city population? Marine Layer and bartleby keep using figures and tables that continue to PROVE my point.
    .
    Why do writers like Ken Rosenthal keep saying San Jose is better for the A’s because it is a bigger city?
    .
    eb seems to be the only other person here that understands this.

  52. @ J. West: This whole Oakland vs. San Jose fued is entirely fan-imagined too. The issue at hand is whether MLB wants to put a MLB team in SJ. I think it’s pretty safe to say MLB would like the A’s in SJ, otherwise this whole ordeal would’ve been over before it started. MLB obviously has their reasons for desiring SJ. It’s really a better use of time to try and understand what’s happening rather than arguing against it because we’re all just bystanders regardless of which city you’d like to see the A’s play.As the poet Jaggar Richards wrote, “You can’t always get what you want, but if you trying sometimes…”

  53. I get it Marine Layer. We all need to agree with you. And when someone like myself or eb don’t, you get upset. I’ve proved my original point about how wrong Ken Rosenthal and his bias reporting is and other free-thinkers like eb agree with me.

  54. Briggs you are right, we are just bystanders and I agree that MLB likes the idea of San Jose as a place to possibly relocate the A’s. I just have a problem with people like Ken Rosenthal reporting things as facts when they aren’t.

  55. @J West – No, you have utterly failed in proving your point effectively. Thread closed.

Comments are closed.