The power of Selig compels you

Allan H. "Bud" Selig, at your disservice

Allan H. “Bud” Selig, at your disservice

Well, not you, Gentle Reader. Lew Wolff and Larry Baer, to be specific. Both respective team head honchos were interviewed on The Game as part of the Newsmakers week of sitdowns with owners. Baer talked mostly about the Giants’ franchise, but was also asked (by Bucher & Towny) about their apparent cockblocking of venue efforts by both the A’s (San Jose) and the Warriors (Piers 30/32). Baer indicated vague support for both teams’ efforts, but would not comment further on what that meant.

Then on Tuesday, Lew Wolff had an absolute disaster of an interview, one where he hesitated, fumbled, and dodged. By the end, everyone including the interviewers were clearly frustrated, Wolff even half-jokingly saying that he wanted the A’s PR department to get him out of the interview.

Wolff’s prior-held opinions on Oakland and San Jose were repeated, but it took only 30 seconds for Wolff to give the first of an endless stream of “No Comment” responses to many of the solid, pointed questions that were aimed his way. “No Comment” has come about because of the gag order imposed by Bud Selig over Wolff and Baer, who had been previously sniping and using the media to their own ends at regular intervals.

Beyond the ongoing rejection of Oakland having any viable sites, Wolff also repeated the mantra that he has been guided to put baseball first, team second. That means no antagonistic PR battles or lawsuits, no waging the territorial rights war. What it also means is that the A’s will continue to be in limbo, at Selig’s and The Lodge’s behest, until Selig or his successor deems the A’s dilemma important enough to resolve in a meaningful way. Lew has always painted himself as a go-along-to-get-along guy, even if the scope of that philosophy is limited to baseball and alienates A’s fans everywhere, along with friends in the South Bay.

Lew is clearly grateful to Bud for bringing him into the Lodge, that much is clear. Thing is, now that he’s in, it’s hard to get him out. Besides the ownership group or individual partners going into bankruptcy (no sign of that happening), there’s little anyone can do in The Lodge or outside it to force anyone out. Lew knows this and has tried to work the process (calling for a vote, etc.) to no avail. It wouldn’t hurt to fight for the franchise instead of always taking one for The Lodge, as is happening now. If the idea is to curry favor with the other owners for something down the road, there’s no indication of such a deal.

I think we’re seeing a repeat of what happened with the 49ers and the Yorks, where Dr. York spent a few years fumbling around as the head before handing the job over to the more media-savvy Jed York. Lew’s son Keith Wolff has had his hands full taking care of the Earthquakes stadium, and may be wary of absorbing the arrows anew with the A’s after having completed an arduous, albeit smaller, task for the soccer franchise. Nevertheless, if Keith is up to it, he’s the guy to smooth things over. Even then, nothing can actually be smoothed over until Selig provides better answers and more information. As the team gets further into the season and off-season without an inked extension for whatever length, this is only going to get weirder and uglier. And as long as the gag order is in place, there will be no point in having additional interviews like Tuesday’s.

130 thoughts on “The power of Selig compels you

  1. AND I AM THE DEVIL, NOW KINDLY UNDO THESE TERRITORIAL RIGHTS!

  2. You could pretty much post this same article every year. We all know the issues, and try never change.
    A question, which do other owners find more palatable?
    1) The A’s make the playoffs for the next five years and win 2 world series, all while taking revenue sharing staying in oakland
    2) The A’s are revenue contributors with a new stadium in sanjose.

  3. @ML–considering a gag order is in place that both teams are abidding strictly to you have to assume there is some level of negotiation going on right now to address the TR issues. Would be interesting to capture your thoughts in this area–2018 aligns with ATT mortgage expiring in 2017–seems to me Bud told LW if you can negotiate with the gints and reach a settlement before then go forward…but if you can’t you have to wait until 2017 after which the ballpark is payed off. I realize you dont have access to whats going on but would be great to get your hypothesis on where the negotiations are relative to the TR rights-

  4. @GO A’s

    2017??? No wonder Bud hasn’t done shit regarding this Oak/S.J A’s mess. Well …..if Lew Wolff is willing to wait then fine….just remember he has to deal with a very upset Oakland that could or should raise the rent higher….and a Raider team that needs the coliseum to themselves. I hope Wolff considers moving to Sacramento or San Francisco so the Raiders can have the coliseum back… When it comes to T-Rights lesson learned to Oakland …never ever give up on your T-rights because its hard to get it back

  5. RM,
    respectfully, your thread reads of doom, gloom and frustration. Sometimes I feel the same way. But if we step back and look at what we know, its really not all that bad. Consider:
    1) Cisco Field won’t happen until 2018.
    2) Baer’s softened stance.
    3) the continued gag order (no comments..yes, frustrating )
    4) Wolff stating baseball came to the same conclusion re East Bay possibilities (see recent sports journal interview)
    5) Wolff stating he has a majority of owners ready to approve a move.
    put all this together and really, not all is gloom. Again, the lease at the Coli is the big news looming and is probably what’s keeping Selig/MLB from making the long awaited revelation. Patience..

  6. @ML
    Hey ml do u think Larry Baer selfishness is helping Oakland not directly but, he is making it sssooo hard on the Warriors and A’s moving into his territory that it could result in both the teams returning to Oakland Coliseum City plan????

    Keep it real

  7. Sigh… Tony:
    1) That’s just the latest date given, but nothing’s in stone yet. So 2018 is irrelevant.
    2) See your #3. That’s all there is to that. He’s abiding by the order to STFU.
    4) So what? That doesn’t mean anything in terms of moving at this point, just that they agree with his stance.
    5) That’s a bit misleading. A vote hasn’t taken place and people will say and do different things. And it takes more than a majority to get it done. It also takes a vote which isn’t in the picture any time soon.

    Having considered all your points, I suggest that Selig is pushing it off on the next guy. The only way any action will occur is if something forces the issue, like having no stadium at all.

  8. Wow Dmoas! Frustrated are we? Well, like myself, you are more than entitled to your opinion. That said, I’ll choose optimism over running for the hills any day of the week. Peace..

  9. No tony, dmoas is right….lew Wolff playing nice guy is hurting san Jose chances…the only way MLB does anything is if Lew Wolff makes the A’s homeless….

  10. There must be some behind closed doors negotiations going on with compensation for the Gnats giving up T R’s (as xoot has suggested previosly) What else would explain why SJ Mayor Reed and rep. Liccardo have been so tolerant about this situation. They were both talking lawsuit, and the A’s do have a strong case against the ATI and the giants territorial rights. The giants organization’s case has some huge basic fundamental flaws.

    MLB, one would believe, be very concerned if the A’s (actually San Jose) were to challenge the MLB ATE and MLB was required to defend the giants flimsy arguments in a courtroom. San Jose would definitely eventually win the case, one would believe.

  11. @Tony D., Can you explain how negotiations for a short-team lease renewal between the A’s and the Coliseum Authority could pose as a stumbling block to MLB for approving the A’s to move to San Jose. The Coliseum Authority has no leverage since they do not have any prospective tenant other than the A’s to fill, at least in the short-term, eighty-one home dates annually. On the other hand, the A’s do have at least two reasonable temporary home options, at least until the new San Jose ballpark will be completed and ready for baseball.
    Also, the Giants have never publicly stated that they have given up their territorial claims to Santa Clara County. The fact that the Giants have publicly yielded to Selig doesn’t mean diddly-squat. What does matter is the private agreement between the Giants and Selig, and which none of us are privy to.

  12. Couple of things.

    1. The Giants are going re-finance their ballpark debt. Meaning their debt will still be there past 2017. Therefore the argument of Selig waiting for the Giants to pay off their debt does not hold weight.

    2. Wolff knows the lodge supports him, multiple owners have gone on record poking fun at him and offering to Wolff to speak to Selig for him. If there was no support in the Lodge for this move it would have died long ago. Dumbass Bud Selig knows this full well.

    3. San Jose cannot sue without support from Wolff period. Without Wolff backing it there is no point for the city to do it…Even if lawyers take it Pro-Bono.

    For the A’s to end up in San Jose one of these events need to occur:

    1. Selig retires and another owner (I.E. Jerry Reinsdorf) who is Pro-San Jose takes over as Commissioner in 2014.

    2. Lew Wolff croaks and his son Keith goes “godfather” like Michael Corleone did and goes right after Selig with the old man gone supporting a City of San Jose lawsuit.

    As long as Lew Wolff is owner of the A’s and Bud Selig is commissioner nothing will occur. We will be in the same position as the past 4 years with no movement.

    Lew Wolff is a good guy and tried his best, this is all really Bud Selig’s fault. It is my hope the next guy “does the right thing” as we all know Selig has no clue what that is.

  13. What a waste of 30 minutes of my life I will not be getting back this lifetime. The interview confirmed what we know: No comment. I just want to know what Plan B is? Everyone should have a plan B.

  14. @mike- plan b has the A’s out of the bay area- give LW credit- he’s doing all he can to make sure the gints don’t get their way-

  15. @sid- refinancing debt has no impact here- the gints could easily pay off their mortgage now- they claim hat they only got financing in past because of SJ- given that the sanctity of those rights are in question I doubt this ploy would work a 2nd time-

  16. Read Baer’s soften stance thread by ML back in January for details re lease at Coli. And just my opinion, I believe a decision has already been made by MLB (see Wolff’s latest comments again in his Sports Journal interview); it just needs to revealed for all to see and/or the deal with the Giants needs to be finalized. LLpec, think about it; if the decision for SJ is revealed tomorrow, what does that do for an A’s lease in Oakland? And if the Coli doesnt’ budge, where do the A’s play next year? Despite the doom and gloom and sky is falling feeling that fills this forum, there’s a lot we dont’ know. As always, patience..

  17. “It wouldn’t hurt to fight for the franchise instead of always taking one for The Lodge, as is happening now”. IMHO this is the reason for the delay in a nutshell. There were multiple reasons prior but after this long to continue to put your franchise behind a stance of “What every you say guys, you know best” just doesn’t cut it. The time, quite a while ago, has come to take a stand and lay at least some of it on the line.

    So be it, it is what it is. The A’s new home will happen at the almost whim of a group of guys who operate in a bubble of posh, gold plated paranoia. Even if one believes that a deal is brewing and 2018 is on track, these guys could change their minds at the drop of a hat……unless you shove them in the direction you need them to go. You do that not by saying “whatever you guys think, you know best”, you do it by advocating for your case like your waging a war to conquer a territory. At least that’s the way I see it….

  18. re: Wolff stating baseball came to the same conclusion re East Bay possibilities (see recent sports journal interview)

    …Wolff talks about 8+ years being spent by him and MLB trying to find a solution in the East Bay but not finding any. But Oakland-only folks and East Bay and Frisco writers will hear none of this. To them, there’s billionaires out there just chomping at the bit to build Oakland a free stadium.

  19. Tony, I can all but guarantee you that just prior to that quote you can keep throwing around as having special meaning Selig told both owners to STFU. And that the next one to violate his gag order loses SJ. Historically Selig has been notoriously reactionary in his decisions and has a habit of waiting until something forces the issue. This allows him to avoid pissing owners off since he can give the classic shrug and say “Hey, what can I do? We have no choice.” This is no different. I still think the A’s go to SJ eventually, but it won’t be happening soon and it won’t be happening without an inciting incident to force the issue. Having no stadium, an (unlikely) lawsuit, a new Giant’s owner, a new Commish, etc.

  20. Y’all is cray cray. MLB is stalling because they’re setting the A’s up to move to Beijing. It makes sense. You know it does.

  21. I believe Sid is right–the Giants either have or will refinance the ballpark debt. Larry Baer said that publicly a year or two back. The AT&T mortgage isn’t a problem. Long-term income generally is the issue.

    imo, there’s some sort of confidential, if conditional, agreement in principle among the A’s, Giants and the rest of mlb. I still think the revenue sharing flip bothers the A’s. If a new ballpark opens, they instantly change from revenue receiver to revenue payor. Combine that double hit with an obligation to pay compensation to the Giants for TRs and you’ve seriously depleted your potential profit. The CBA will expire in 2016 (I think). The revenue sharing formula could change then. 2018 is certainly a realistic guess.

    Nice season so far, btw. Hope the current OF injuries are minor. HBP and other purely bad-luck injuries have really messed up the Giants–for the time being. 😉

  22. @xoot–you state that you believe that Sid is right–his premise is that nothing will happen until BS leaves or KW takes over and goes “godfather”. Your premise is that there is an agreement in place and waiting on a new CBA where the A’s would hope for a more favorable outcome on revenue sharing. The value to MLB from LW has always been they want the A’s off the dole and a ballpark in SJ will afford this–personally I believe that there is some sliding scale associated with TR that ties into their “original” mortgage and LW would rather wait than pay top dollar today—

  23. It is entirely possible that the stadium lease is holding this up. If the A’s were to announce that they are leaving, the JPA has less incentive to play nice, i.e. terms favorable to the A’s.

    Wolff said he is not against a five year contract, as long as the exit penalties are low or nonexistent.

    I would think that announcing the SJ move would actually help the A’s with leverage. “We know we’re leaving, so either play nice, or we’ll just build a temporary facility somewhere and you’ll get nothing.” However, that could also make the JPA just say “Eff you, go.” and then the A’s really would have to build a temporary facility. It’s easier to just get the lease and ride it out without the trouble of building something for just a two or three years’ use.

    If I were a businessman, I’d rather ride the cheaper option that everyone is used to while the new place is built.

  24. MLB is heavily subsidizing major league baseball in Oakland, which has repaid this generosity by turning the facility into an unattractive football stadium and leaves the field a mess in September and October. At some point if the city and county play hardball too much, the incentive to either suspend franchise operations for a few years or move the team to Vegas or Sacto, maybe temporarily, becomes too great. I don’t think Oakland and the county have as much leverage as some might think. Remember when Steve Schott moved a few games to Vegas because of the Coliseum construction mess? Like I’ve said before, the NBA Nets played at the Meadowlands arena and then the Prudential Center for something like five years while everyone knew they were going to bolt to Brooklyn, eventually. There’s precedent for a long-term lame-duck situation like the A’s are proposing – or have already been living under.

  25. Great insight pjk

  26. “LW would rather wait than pay top dollar today—”
    @GoA’s–I believe, and I’ve said this for more than a year, that the A’s are complicit in mlb’s delay.

    Delay helps the Giants. Larry Baer’s nothing if not a marketeer and he’s got his machine working overtime to lock in deals (long-term luxury box leases? sponsorships? who knows) with SV firms that will be in place when the A’s finally start marketing their new SJ stadium. Bet on it. Under my hypothetical agreement in principle, the cost for TRs may slide down the longer the delay continues.

    Wolff/Fisher may have pressed for all sorts of contingent or conditional payment terms. E.g., mlb could agreed to try to renegotiate the revenue sharing provisions in the 2017 CBA so that the A’s will get a break–they could go off the dole with a new park, but not immediately become a revenue payor. Or some variation of that. Or, e.g., the amount the A’s have to pay the Giants for TRs could diminish based on how much the A’s have to contribute to the revenue-sharing pool, if the A’s actual revenue falls below a certain level.

    The possible permutations are myriad. I’m just guessing. But the ongoing delay makes such beneficial things possible–for Wolff/Fisher.

  27. Personally, it seemed completely weird when Lew Wolff went from “build it as fast as possible” to “2018.”
    .
    That move reeks of “something in the works.”
    .
    I doubt that something has anything to do with Oakland.

  28. @xoot- we are in agreement- multitude of options but at this point I would guess the 2018 timeframe is based upon LW’s assessment of what makes financial sense for the A’s- and yes LB is a marketing animial- can only hope the SV companies take exception to the gints handling of this issue and collectively raise their middle finger at him.

  29. It’s time for Lew to step aside

  30. @gojohn- based upon what- big LW/Fisher can here- working to save our team for the Bay Area

  31. It may be time for him to step aside just get a fresh news cycle.

  32. @suit,
    There are enough SV, and Bay Area, companies FOR BOTH the A’s and Giants to fill up suites and sponsorships (this is the Bay Area, not Detroit or Cleveland).
    @all,
    Its been awhile, but RM did a thread (based on a Wolff interview) on how much revenue annually the A’s could generate in a new SJ ballpark. I want to say it was around $320 million (?). Anyhow, long story short; revenue sharing in SJ probably not an issue whatsoever.
    2018 Cisco Field = minimal compensation for Giants having to share SC/SJ. It will happen, end of discussion..

  33. @GJ10,
    that was a good one BTW..

  34. A’s sweep the Yankee$ in 18 innings. Thanks to revenue-sharing (subsidies for the A’s), the Yankee$ are paying good money to have the A’s beat them…

  35. It’s not a knock on Lew to suggest Keith become more prominent on stadium matters. A fresh point person might be just what it needs to get moving. Hopefully, he learned a thing or two working on the soccer field that he can apply to a bigger, more complicated project.

  36. I didn’t say time for Lew to sell. I think Lew stepping aside for Keith makes a lot of sense. Even many SJ supporters have come to view Lew as somewhat of a buffoon. He clearly wasn’t expecting to have to wait this long for a decision and it shows. His lines are stale and his “aw shucks” shtick has grown old, just like the man himself. Someone is going to have to repair the damaged relationship the team has helped create with Oakland supporters and it clearly isn’t Lew. The time has come for a change with hopefully a decision from MLB not far behind.

  37. Sorry GJ10,
    Miss understood your post. I somewhat agree with you in the sense that Keith will soon take the reigns from Pops (if he hasn’t already re San Jose). Heck, I think I recall Wolff telling ML in an interview that he should really talk to Keith re Cisco Field’s design and features. I keep going back to the recent Sports Journal interview with Wolff, but he did state if he gets “tired” he has strong backup behind him; most likely referring to son Keith, Fisher, San Jose interests, perhaps Beane.
    Keith Wolff – future owner of the San Jose Athletics and Earthquakes!

  38. I just listened to the podcast of Wolff’s interview and cannot for the life of me, understand how you all are inferring things written in this thread …

    He knew about T-Rights when he bought the team, but somehow believes he should be able to change that, because he needs a “core area”. Seems sorta crazy to me.

  39. @gojohn- so lets see- A’s made it clear before interview that stadium issues were not to be discussed- yethe pummels with a bunch of questions regarding the stadium and it’s his fault. Why didn’t these guys pummel Baer the same way with TR questions? The few the lobbed his way were swatted away with the same dance that LW put on but then they moved onto other things. If the man isn’t allowed to talk about TR while negotiations are going on then how will it be any different if KW or anyone else stepped in right now. Timing is everything and the timing of a transition should happen once MLB completes the negotiations- not when they are on- going with KW having to do the same dance. Give LW credit- he is taking all of the bullets but someone had to because of the way BS allowed this to play out.

  40. @David,
    Keep your head in the sand if it makes you feel better re this whole situation. And BTW, no major American city should be banned from pursuing/obtaining MLB because of a territorial restriction; especially if that restriction was/is in place because said team (Giants) was supposed to relocate here themselves. Wolff should be commended for freeing San Jose, not chastised. As a San Jose native/resident, I thank him as well.

  41. @GoA’s,
    Totally agree with you.
    @all,
    Give the man a break!

  42. This argument of “He knew about territorial rights when he bought the team” comes down to if you believe he made an honest effort in Oakland. Personally, I do. And that’s the interview I want to hear, the one being alluded to in the form of allowing the hosts to see the documentation. He can’t answer territorial rights questions, he’s respecting the process, but if he’s willing to share all the efforts he made, I think that would be interesting. I doubt it will silence the pro-Oakland, lied/tried crowd, but unless it’s a ballpark anywhere but their town, not much else will.

  43. For a long time I defended Wolff. Seems that he’s been put in a bad situation by Selig. That being said, he hasn’t helped himself at all and at times has bungled things pretty bad. At the very least he should be held accountable for grossly underestimating how difficult this process would be. “I didn’t think it would take this long” doesn’t cut it for me. Sorry.

    That being said, we don’t have to agree whether Wolff deserves to be a punching bag or not. However, it should be clear that Wolff shouldn’t be the guy in charge if the A’s ever get to a new ballpark (especially one in SJ). He’s burned too many bridges. Time for a fresh start whether it is Keith or, perhaps even better, someone without the last name Wolff. The York situation worked well b/c Jed is great with the media. From what I’ve seen from Keith, I’m skeptical he has those skills.

  44. It’s the same old thing – those who want Wolff to sell the team can expect potential buyers to move the team far, far away. MLB has been looking for an East Bay stadium solution for years. But it’s just not there. Wolff is to be commended for looking to keep the team in the Bay Area and having this much patience.

  45. @gj10,
    Curious, when did you see Keith Wolff address the media? As long as I’ve followed this blog and news of the ballpark (and even Quakes SSS), I’ve never seen the man in front of a camera. Appreciate your skepticism, but I’d withhold judgment until he became the true front man (if ever).
    You know, Beane is also an owner within the organization. I could also see him (possibly) becoming the face of the franchise post 2018…

  46. Wasn’t Keith involved with going door to door in Fremont trying to sell the residents on hosting the A’s? Residents responded by protesting every night.

  47. I don’t think Billy Beane wants to be the face of the franchise. He’s had plenty of time to assume that role if he wanted to. He’ll be entering his late 50s by 2018. If anything, I could see him stepping aside and being more of an advisor… or even taking an MLB consultant position.

  48. Door to door selling in Fremont? C’mon pjk, really?
    @Briggs, you make late 50’s sound like its over the hill. I personally won’t be digging my own grave at mid-century; don’t think Beane will either..

  49. From what I recall, Keith tried to talk up the neighbors in Warm Springs about the ballpark. They would hear none of it.

  50. @pjk,
    My point was (if true) that was a poor example of how Keith Wolff would be as the A’s frontman. Hard core NIMBYS are hard core NIMBYS, and not even the best salesperson could sell them a stadium in their backyard. Nice try though..

  51. @Tony D: You’re putting words in my mouth. I didn’t say anything to imply he’ll be too old for anything. I’m saying with the knowledge and experience he would’ve accumulated by 2018, he might be more inclined to apply his time and skills on a broader scope.

  52. This wasn’t that long ago, folks. Watch this.

    The only things missing from the scene were pitchforks and torches.

  53. I had some very brief interactions with Keith when he was helping with the Fremont ballpark project. Probably not fair to make a judgement based that encounter, but I’ll do it anyway. My first impression is he’s a lot like his pop. I’m sure he’s a good business guy, but not so great in the public relations field. Maybe the quakes fans or ML have more extensive interactions with him and a different take?

  54. And just to be clear, I was a supporter of the Fremont ballpark and I was not at the rally at Weibel ML liked above.

  55. I’ve only talked to Keith briefly. We haven’t had that lengthy ballpark discussion (yet). I thought he was fine, though he isn’t nearly as slick as the much younger Jed (Keith is in his 40’s IIRC). Plus let’s not underestimate the halo effect the 49ers’ winning has had on Jed and the stadium project. It’d be a much tougher sell without the on-field success.

  56. Isn’t Kaval the face of the Earthquakes new stadium effort. I know that Keith is the behind the scenes leader but I dont believe he has ever been in the media re: Quakes new stadium. I would expect that the A’s will do the same thing at some point. Kaval is a good front man–someone similiar would benefit the A’s once LW is done taking the bullets–

  57. Kaval was brought in once the deal was essentially done to drum up fan and corporate interest. That’s a very different role than what Keith Wolff was doing.

  58. @briggs,
    Point taken; my bad. FYI, I’m 6 years from mid-century, so I took it a little personal 😉
    @RM,
    I recall those scenes. IMHO, opponents to anything will always show up in force at town hall meetings even if they don’t represent the majority view (see high speed rail project). Anyhow, I believe Fremont died off for reasons not related to pitchfork wielding NIMBY’S, but that’s all water under a bridge/irrelevant at this point.
    My thoughts here have run its course; until the next thread…

  59. The Warm Springs ballpark would have been near the new Warm Springs BART station. Build a ballpark right near a major, expensive transit stop, thus maximizing use of the new station? There would be none of that.

  60. I find it very amusing that Lew Wolff gets Vilified by some A’s fans for trying to get the best new ballpark Bay Area location for his team, yet Larry Baer gets for the most part a pass for being the main stumbling block to getting the A’s new Bay Area ballpark situation resolved. The “Oakland only” crowd are very foolish to think that Larry Baer is an ally to their cause. By blocking the A’s move to San Jose, this will not improve the chances that the A’s will remain in Oakland for the long-term. If anything, by preventing the A’s to move to a Bay Area location of their choosing, it may likely lead to an eventual move of the A’s to Portland, Las Vegas, Charlotte, or some other market. I would very much want to hear from those in the “Oakland only” crowd to publicly state that they would rather have the A’s move to some other market, if the A’s cannot get a long-term new stadium built in either Oakland or anywhere else in the East Bay.

  61. I want to continue to support the Oakland A’s. If they built a stadium in Alameda and remained the “Oakland A’s” – i would be fine with that. My friends who support the 9ers, are happy the teams name isn’t changing, with the new stadium location.

  62. It’s not just the vilification of Wolff by the pro-Oaklanders. He was the guy that was brought in to get a stadium built. That was in six years ago and there doesn’t seem to be much more that has been clarified since then. At what point does he start losing credibility? Even South Bay baseball supporters have to be pretty darn frustrated with the man by this point.

  63. David: Exactly how many more years should be spent looking for a site in the A’s current territory and the money to build it? Flashback: MLB forms Blue Ribbon Committee to study A’s ballpark opportunities in their current territory – March 2009. 4+ years. Wasn’t long before the committee started talking to San Jose, obviously because of the dearth of possibilities in the current territory.

  64. pjk – I am as eager as anyone else, to see the results of the BRC.

  65. David: The BRC won’t release any results because we already know what they found – no viable sites in Alameda or Contra Costa counties. If they had found viable sites, Wolff would have been directed to build at one of them or sell the team. But his contention that all East Bay possibilities have been exhausted obviously has withstood the scrutiny of MLB’s Blue Ribbon Committee. It’s a big “I told you so” for Lew Wolff. Selig does not want to get into the T rights mess but San Jose is the only viable site left in the Bay Area. So he does what a courageous guy like him would do – absolutely nothing. (And no, proposing a privately funded, $800 million ballpark at Howard Terminal, requiring toxic waste removal and railroad obstruction mediations, doesn’t count as viable.)

  66. “I would very much want to hear from those in the “Oakland only” crowd to publicly state that they would rather have the A’s move to some other market, if the A’s cannot get a long-term new stadium built in either Oakland or anywhere else in the East Bay”

    Look no further than Oaklandfans.com and their feckless leader Diamond Lil who has stated on numerous occasions she would rather see the A’s leave out of state then have them relocate from Oakland to another site within the Bay Area.

  67. The A’s aren’t willing to do what the 49ers are going to do: relocate to the South Bay and pretend they’re still in Frisco. The way the new stadium in Santa Clara has been publicized, most in the country will never know the team moved 40+ miles away. Planes flying over the stadium will be presumed to be flying out of SFO. I even read something this morning about how Frisco is is building the 49ers a new $1.2 billion stadium. Uh, no it’s not…The A’s are going to change their names to San Jose, which is simply unacceptable for Oakland-only folks.

  68. I’ve supported the Diridon site as soon as it became news, but I have to admit: a Howard Terminal ballpark would be pretty sweet. It’s got a prettier backdrop than Diridon and I really think the casual fan (who the ballpark is marketed towards) would like the idea of dual waterfront ballparks along the bay. Hell, I like that idea. To many casual fans, a trip to AT&T Park is basically an excuse to post pictures of yourself there in front of some scenic backdrop. Howard Terminal has more pretty potential than Diridon.

  69. Howard Terminal, with its toxic waste and railroad obstruction issues, is a nonstarter. Particularly when no public $$ is being offered to help pay for the ballpark. We’re talking massive expenses to pay for the remediations and cleanup, if either of these is even possible, all to be paid for out of the owners’ pockets. Owners might even have to spend piles of money just to confirm what is already known – the site is unworkable. Wolff said HT has no ability to be developed for a ballpark; no contradiction of that contention has been offered by the Blue Ribbon Committee.

  70. @pjk – we can all speculate, but none of us can be certain what is in the report. It could say there is somewhere to build in the east bay and that wouldn’t be binding. They can’t make them build where they (BRC) say.

  71. There’s nothing in the report that Selig wants revealed because it presents a situation he is too cowardly to deal with: No sites or financing available in the East Bay; San Jose is all that’s left in the Bay Area. As you said, Wolff knew what the territory was, but now MLB itself has found the territory unworkable for a new ballpark.

  72. @pjk: Oh, yeah. Absolutely. I’m not saying it’s the cheapest or most practical solution. It’d be pretty though. You gotta admit. The blimp shots spanning ballpark to ballpark during the yearly Bay Bridge series would be breathtaking.

  73. David, Wolff and his (mega-bucks)types are not stupid. They are privy to and receive more info. and much more professional advice about the situtation than we do. Wolff very likely didn’t purchase the A’s and plan on moving the team to SJ without knowing all the facts.

    The TR rights issue would violate basic business law big time (it is only being protected currently by the wobbly MLB ATE (which MLB is concerned could be defeated in court) Besides, Wolff is likely being truthful when he implies that the A’s have enough votes to overturn the TR. Also, ESPN (usually an accurate source) mentioned several months ago that Selig was working MLB owners for a yes vote on the A’s move and was having success.

  74. if a howard terminal site was viable, sure it’d be near the water but it wouldn’t have those great at&t or pnc scenic or back drop. if anything the park would still have to face mainly east and really you’d have more of the view the coliseum had pre mt davis rather than the picturous water views.

    at best maybe they could orientate the park south west and you’d get a view of the estuary and the island of alameda so it’d be a bit like gabp in cin which is built near the water but you really don’t get a great view of it.

    but agreed with the statement above that the pro oakland crowd being on the same side as baer makes me laugh since in reality he’d try to do all he could to drive the a’s out of the bay area and blocking sj really is the best hope since it a park can’t be done in sj then it’s likely the a’s will eventually move out of the bay are. unless this mythical group led by knauss is willing to spend a billion dollars to buy the a’s and build a privately financed baseball only park somewhere in downtown/waterfront oakland.

  75. The BRC findings are negotiating power. There’s absolutely no reason to release them to the public. There’s also no reason to assume no viable sites were found in Contra Costa or Alameda Counties. Maybe there were, but their viability needs to be weighted against Diridon, whose total cost:benefit is still being negotiated/assessed. Who knows? What we DO know is that SJ is enticing enough to where MLB would keep it on the table this long.

  76. Briggs: Selig has said the A’s cannot and will not stay at the Coliseum. But here they are, staying at the Coliseum. Why? Because nothing workable has been found in the current territory and Selig is too terrified of the Giants to make a move on the obvious solution – downtown San Jose. By letting the A’s situation rot, Selig contradicts his own edict. His “You’re not going to get a f***ing answer” response at a public press conference shows us all we need to know about how he is not fit to run MLB. He’ll be best remembered for the steroids scandal, that’s it. Baseball’s most-precious HR records all rendered meaningless, on Bud’s watch. The new “HR leader” can’t even get into the Hall of Fame – this is on Bud’s watch. The A’s debacle won’t even be a footnote on Bud’s wikipedia entry, thanks to his other failures.

  77. duffer, you mean the smart, mega-buck types that buy a bunch of land in Fremont that they can’t use for the reason the purchased it?

  78. alderson or reinsdorf for the next mlb commish!

  79. Wolff went ahead and gave Fremont his best shot and it didn’t work out. The last opportunity for a ballpark in the A’s current territory. Now, there’s nothing left.

  80. The A’s did not purchase any land in Fremont, Cisco did, and it’s likely that Cisco made a tidy profit on the land sale.

  81. If Bud Selig does go out with a bang, he will announce a verdict on the A’s just before he finally steps down. It sort of ironic that he has another drug scandal to deal with before he can settle the A’s stadium issue. I don’t see this issue being settled until baseball’s 2014 winter meetings.

  82. Well, working backwards from the Coliseum lease renewal through 2018, a new A’s ballpark would be ready in 2019. Rewind 3 years from there, and we can estimate groundbreaking in 2016, meaning an annoucement sometime in 2015. We’re half way through 2013, so I wouldn’t be holding my breath for on any MLB annoucements.

  83. @briggs- need it sooner than that to support land acquisitions- i would guess that after S4SJ lawsuit is either dismissed or withdrawn that’s when things will move forward-so it could be another year

  84. Vasgersian talks about markets like Sacto and Charlotte not being able to support an MLB team but doesn’t mention that Oakland can’t, either. Without the Big $$ revenue-sharing checks, the A’s don’t field a team. He also offers no insight as to a ballpark site in Oakland or a way to pay for it. Just “the answer’s in Oakland.”

  85. Personally I don’t pay attention to the pundits whom use little logic about where a ballpark belongs and how to pay for it. Bottom line I the BRC and MLB are well aware of the financial challenges associated with privately financing a park in Oakland- that’s why negotiations over TR are in play- not because LW hates Oakland and never tried.

  86. Vasgersian’s comments are lame and are similiar to a lame giants fans when they scream that “the A’s move to SJ will never happen” and don’t offer any argument supporting that claim. Vasgersian’s comments only demonstrate what little he knows about the situation (It’s not up to the giants – it’s MLB’s vote that will decide it)

  87. A’s: in first place, with economical ticket prices, but still ranking 25th in attendance. And this is after the Giants and Yankee$ have already been to town. Bankers asked to finance a ballpark in Oakland will be more interested in the aforementioned figures than proclamations that “the answer’s in Oakland.”

  88. 31,000+ in attendance on a Friday night with the garbage Mariners in town.

    Let’s Go Oakland!

  89. David, it’s a fireworks night.

  90. …and only 31,000 on a major gimmick night-! Let’s go oakland- ok

  91. Giants get 40 plus on a Tuesday night against the Hebrew Oilers (A little “The Natural” reference) without a firework in sight. That is the bar the A’s need to set and hope to with a new park. With $30 parking and a “cheap” $30 ticket, the Giants still sell out. And no, it’s not just corporate weenies. Many, many of the fans that go are good, dedicated baseball fans, but unfortunately that doesn’t always fit in the us vs. them narrative.

  92. I’ve been to free parking Tuesdays where the place is 80 percent empty. Giants reflexively sell out every night, premium prices, no gimmicks and all

  93. Well if the A’s played in a similar facility to the giants they would get a lot closer to those attendance numbers. Stupid comparison now though

  94. a lot of mlb teams had firework fridays during home night games. think chisox, laa, and hou are just a few that do that.

    i don’t know how much a 15 minute firework display costs but if the a’s can get 25-30 thousand for fireworks games wouldn’t be it all worth it in the end?

  95. The only narrative we’re supposed to consider as to why the A’s don’t draw well is because the owners are “suppressing attendance.” We’re not supposed to entertain the notion that the East Bay is not a great baseball market. Even when the stadium was considered state-of-the-art attendance usually was not great.

  96. If the A’s had a new stadium to play in they would draw more fans than they currently do.

  97. Bandwagon fans – Daveyboy. Once the Giants slip below .500 and play poorly for a few years, all those fair weather fans will disappear. The Giants management is desperately attempting to stay close to the A’s (the giants DFA’s four players earlier in the week) because the Giants mgt. knows their propaganda campaign to be the dominant team in the bay and make the A’s insignifcant will look foolish if the A’s are in 1st and the Giants are a sub .500 fourth or last place team.

  98. re: If the A’s had a new stadium to play in they would draw more fans than they currently do.

    …and that’s what they’re trying to get. The current host city has never made a new ballpark for the A’s a priority and won’t help pay for one, so the owners are looking to build where it makes financial sense – about 30 miles from where the team plays now.

  99. After trying to think like Selig, here is what I came up with.

    -Selig is “old school” and teams infringing on other teams T-rights in his eyes is sacrilegious, regardless if it is 30 miles away in the same market. Hence why he turned down San Jose in 2004 when Schott and Hoffman pushed for it then. Selig felt they did not try in Oakland or the East Bay.

    -Selig let Wolff take over the A’s because he felt if anyone could make it happen Oakland/East Bay it was Wolff, who is a well known real estate developer. It turns out Schott and Hoffman were right and the East Bay did not have a feasible site that makes economic sense for the A’s and/or any municipality involved.

    -Selig in his archaic mindset thinks by letting the A’s into San Jose will put them into massive debt since the ballpark is privately financed and it hurts the Giants losing rights to Silicon Valley. In essence he feels it hurts both teams by letting the A’s into San Jose. Even though the Giants right now are essentially subsidizing the A’s.

    -Selig appointed the BRC because he felt these 3 geniuses would prove Wolff wrong and find a site in the East Bay and make it happen. 4+ years later his committee has not found anything and each day makes Selig look more idiotic.

    -Selig by waiting this out is praying for a “Oakland Miracle” where a massive public subsidy shows up out of no where as has happened in other MLB cities.

    -A big part of Selig’s legacy is getting every team a new/renovated ballpark. Only Tampa Bay and Oakland remain in his way of completing this goal. Problem is he cannot complete his goal because Tampa Bay is stuck in mud for years to come long after Selig’s retirement. Since he cannot help Tampa Bay what does it matter if he helps Oakland when it comes to his legacy in this regard?

    In conclusion, because of his “old school” thinking does not see how profitable the A’s would be in San Jose with minimal impact on the Giants.

    He cannot see the Bay Area is two metro markets (SF-Oak-Fremont and SJ-SC-Sunnyale) and the sheer distance between the teams (SF and SJ) would make both the A’s and Giants big time revenue sharing winners.

    Selig agrees with the Giants argument that Silicon Valley is 50% of their season ticket/sponsorship base when in reality Santa Clara County alone is probably closer to 25% and the Giants are combining San Mateo County into the argument since people there may head to San Jose if the A’s are down there.

    As you can see above unless Selig changes his thinking in a major way the A’s are stuck until he leaves or as I said before Wolff croaks and his son Keith goes “godfather” and supports a San Jose lawsuit.

    This is so sad because Selig is way off. The Giants overstate their case and in reality they would still control a majority of the Bay Area even with the A’s in San Jose.

    But that is what you get with old ass Selig….

  100. re: each day makes Selig look more idiotic.

    …Is that really possible to make Selig look more idiotic? And Selig’s legacy will not be new ballparks – it will be steroids

  101. Whatever happened to the concept of removing the tarps for well sold premium games? While the attendance is up this year, I could only imagine what it might be like if they actually let more people in the gates on those big game days

  102. “”-Selig in his archaic mindset thinks by letting the A’s into San Jose will put them into massive debt since the ballpark is privately financed and it hurts the Giants losing rights to Silicon Valley. In essence he feels it hurts both teams by letting the A’s into San Jose. Even though the Giants right now are essentially subsidizing the A’s. “”

    I’m not a financial major but the debt of the A’s, while always a concern to take on debt, can’t be a frightening show stopping one. Quick math: (A) 500 million dollar ballpark. (B) as a guess I will say the life of the loan is 25 years. (C) I’ll guess 700 million dollar (principal and interest). Let’s say naming rights will pay 100 million over the life of the loan. We now have 25 years at 600 million which equals 24 million per year in payments. Considering the expected attendance increase, the increase in ticket pricing levels, corporate money potential, the nature of a fixed payment versus CPI over 25 years (the value of 24 million will decrease as time goes on), I would think the yearly mortgage payment should not be a stumbling block.

    To the second part and whether the Giants will be substantially hurt by a SJ ballpark? This is not something I have seen seriously addressed in a factual report. Why is it already assumed that San Francisco (and ‘immediate’ surrounding areas), one of the wealthiest well known cities on the globe, one of the most visited cities in the world, home to many a successful company, does not contain enough of a corporate/fan base to support a team that has a fabulous ballpark that is nearly paid off?? Until I see the hard numbers (I assume the BRC has statistics?) that says “SF will see a XX% drop in revenue due to a SJ ballpark”, this line of thinking is just a Giants talking point-negotiating tactic and not a serious concern to anyone other than the Giants desire to have marketing/sales be too easy.

  103. @Bill – Supposedly the MLB doesn’t allow the stadiums to change capacity during the season.

    Here’s my take on it… If you can’t go to a game because it’s sold out, go to another game. See, that’s how it works in other markets.

    It even works across teams. For example, parents at my kid’s preschool are always telling me that it’s too expensive to go to Giants game (because they’re almost always near sell-out, demand keeps the prices high) so they go to A’s games instead. As much as it’s hard to just smile and nod at them, it’s actually a good thing. Perhaps their kid will witness Cespedes and Reddick go back to back to cap a 9th inning comeback win and forever become a fan?

  104. @bill- 3 games against the Yankee’s and none close to a sell out- division rival Texas- in town- no sellouts- so why remove the tarps when you can’t sell the seats you have?

  105. “”each day makes Selig look more idiotic””
    What’s that saying, ‘if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?’. While a reading of the facts should make a thinking person question the efficacy of a “commissioner’ (whether you are pro Oakland, pro San Jose or neutral), these facts are not widely known….ergo BS is not idiotic looking. Of course the mechanism to make the public aware that it is embarrassing that he has made no decision or even taken a position, the media, has largely not reported on the issue and the many many intriguing side issues (ML may be the most effective reporter in all of the media in regards to the ballpark issue). And when the media has reported on it, it is framed often as ‘LW and San Jose must be giving up as baseball will not allow their plans’ instead of what the heck has BS been doing for the last 5 years. Or it is framed as ‘evil owner is trying to leave the city where he belongs’ instead of what has/is Oakland doing, what has/is SJ doing, why has BS not been able to make a decision or take a position. The fact that BS has taken longer to decide (or at least take a position on) one single stadium proposal than, basically, it took America to fight a world war IS idiotic…as unknown as that fact is.

  106. TW, you forgot to factor in that the A’s would no longer receive the 20+ million in revenue sharing.

  107. Also is the basic fact that the bay area’s fanbase is 7.2 mil. Even when divided by two (3.6 mil.) – the bay area is still larger than most MLB franchises’ fanbases are. There is a large enough fanbase to support both teams. The idea that the bay area cannot support both teams is another myth spun by the gnats/KNBR.

    Most of that 7.2 mil. is within close proxity to SF and San Jose. Many cities’ metro areas, Tampa Bay for example, as ML pointed out, are more spread out and their ballparks are less accessible for their fans.

  108. And think of the high fives around Frisco Giants offices if they can drive the A’s from the Bay Area and have it all to themselves. Nobody knows better than the Giants how difficult to impossible it will be for the A’s to get a new ballpark in Oakland.

  109. Not only will the A’s cease to receive revenue-sharing money when a new ballpark opens, they’ll also automatically turn into a revenue-paying franchise on that date. The Bay Area is a major market. The CBA spells out these terms quite clearly. This hypothesis makes sense: Wolff/Fisher do not want to take a chance on the costs of a San Jose move so long as they have BOTH compensation to the Giants and revenue-sharing payments to mlb hanging over their head(s). They’re not sure they’ll make money in San Jose under those terms.

  110. You know xoot you are right…

    To the San Jose supporters, you guys got a lot of explaining to do re: how many problems there are,, Lew funding 100% do everything yet u might have to overpay the giants. I expect pjk and tony d to rag on how oakland is worse and blah blah blah, but San Jose as a city has gotten pretty wild, murders, robberys vandalism…cant blame Oakland forever..San Jose of ur honest is not the safe city it once was, so why cant the A’s build at the coliseum….I don’t know to many ” thugs” at baseball games anyway, do u???….

    It is much cheaper for Wolff or a new owner to come in and build at the coliseum…it is actually the cheapest option… Howard terminal could be 800 mil, San Jose 500-600 mil, but at the coliseum area , it could be 300-400 mil, maybe 50-100 mil public funding from Oakland can make a new A’s stadium happen, end of debate…

  111. @xoot- and to your point, which I agree with, the question is how any TR settlement would be structured. If the bay area is a 2 team market- which even the gints agree, then why would a franchise who has been in the area for going on 50 years have to pay to move within the confines of a 2 team market because of a mistake MLB made in the early 90’s- my theory is MLB is going to have to take the hit on TR settlement one way or another- either thru extension of revenue sharing for x number of years or some other direct settlement-

  112. great attendance all weekend against the Mariners!

    let’s Go Oakland!!

  113. Standfor: The available monies for privately financing a ballpark in Silicon Valley vs. Oakland is a subject covered in here to death many times. Just look at the Raiders PSL debacle vs. the 49ers, who are selling PSLs with no problem. The risk of privately financing a ballpark in Oakland is too great for anyone but the most charitable “investor.”
    David: It was fireworks night Friday, gnome giveaway day today, and was there a special promotion yesterday, too? All that matter is the A’s came back and stomped on the Mariners today. I got a new A’s t shirt for Father’s Day today and it says “Oakland” on it, BTW. In big letters.

  114. Aaron, the margins in Oakland are worse and they’ll still be Revenue payers the moment the stadium is built regardless.

  115. Where does it say that the Giants are required to receive compensation from the A’s in return for giving up their so called “territorial rights” claims to Santa Clara County? The Giants never compensated the A’s when then A’s owner Walter Haas gave the green light for the Giants to move to Santa Clara County back in the early 1990s. In actuality, the compensation issue was rightfully a moot issue back then, since the Giants never did move to the South Bay. As a result, the so called “territorial rights” gift that Mr, Haas foolishly granted to the Giants should have been acknowledged to be null an void. That said, to soften the blow to the Giants’ ego about a possible move of the A’s to the lucrative South Bay, I can see an arrangement where the A’s could conceivably become tenants of the Giants until the new ballpark for the A’s is built in San Jose. This could be a very good short-term money making arrangement for the Giants.

  116. @pjk

    Let’s talk baseball….

    Using the eye test…I can tell this SF Giants team will not be defending their world series championships. Good.

    This A’s team SHOULD , I repeat should repeat as AL west champs with a chance to compete for a world series, right?

    Attendance is better because the A’s aee consistent team, not thr best but still its more than normal. I believe pjk that a cheaper option of a new owner of the A’s is at the coliseum site.east bay fans will come to a new ballpark and fill it. I believe the owners will get theor investment back.

  117. Attendance is not much better – the A’s are entrenched at the bottom of the pile where they usually are. And MLB already has rejected the Coliseum site – it wants downtown, not big parking lot, ballparks. I’m sure Bud’s so-called Blue Ribbon Committee has studied the Coliseum City proposal 100 X over but has offered no endorsement. Because it’s not workable.

  118. “Where does it say that the Giants are required to receive compensation . . . .”
    @llpec: There’s no rule or precedent on the issue that I know of, but the circumstance seems pretty clear. Wolff/Fisher bought the A’s knowing that the mlb constitution/master agreement established SC County as the Giants territory. SC County isn’t today what it was in the late 80s when neither team owned it and Wally Haas said to Lurie, you want it? you got it. The Giants owners make a decent economic argument when they claim they purchased the team in 92 relying on the exclusive rights to SV. They took a risk, and part of their upside involved the TRs. And, of course, they delivered, big time. So I think mlb’s inclined to favor a buy out. Is it fair? hell no. It’s business. So is revenue sharing.

  119. @xoot,The validity of the territorial rights issue could ultimately wind up in the courts, not for us to decide. That said, the territorial rights issue for two or more teams that share the same market is unprecedented. Just look at the Nets and Islanders who moved, or will move, from the NY/NJ suburbs to near proximity to the Knicks and Rangers respectfully. Neither the Knicks nor the Rangers are blocking these moves. In the two team shared markets of New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles, the teams are competitive in relation with each other, while at the same time they would want for the other team to respectively thrive and be sucessful on and off the playing field. I cannot believe it’s anything close to that between the Giants and A’s. Regardless of the rationale of the Giants, it’s plainly obvious they do not want for the A’s to be a successful franchise in their shared Bay Area market.

  120. @ Dan

    Great post. If I was the players I would refuse to play in the Coliseum until the crappers get fixed.

  121. Xoot, they AND the Giants ownership bought their teams knowing that there as an option to override the TR with a 3/4 vote. People like to point out that they knew those rights existed, but they fail to acknowledge the other half of it; that they’re not set in stone.

  122. Not including today’s sell out game, the A’s have moved up to 24th on the attendance list only 400 less in average attendance than the White Sox. Me, being a glass half full guy, likes to think of this as a “Let’s fill this place! ” rally cry. Let’s shoot for 23rd and keep climbing! P.S. I discovered the hot dog stand near sect 224. Fun combos! I had the Pacific Dog with hoisin sauce, scallions and pineapple

  123. I bet BS is celebrating tonight because the A’s are drowning in sh$t. Oh Larry Baer too and the entire G’s ownership are celebrating and knocking glasses in SF

  124. And how much does the JPA want the A’s to pay so they can play in this shithole for the next 5-years- value just dropped significantly- nor are there too many players willing to defend the place right now

  125. daniel, Don’t know if Larry is celebrating. The A’s just got yet another very good reason to be granted San Jose by BS. The Coliseum as of today is no longer fit to host Major League Baseball.

  126. One fact, you missed Xoot, that this is not business. What the giants are attempting to do to the A’s would completely violate business law.

    Also, here are some interesting stats made from an A’s fan (danipower) at the sfgate website:

    danipower0 11:55 PM on June 16, 2013

    “Just to clarify the argument in previous comments about the A’s never having out-drawn the Giants, here’s a list of every year that, in fact, average attendance was higher in Oakland than in San Francisco, per Baseball Almanac:

    1970: Oakland 9,609, SF 9,145
    1972: Oakland 11,888, SF 7,997
    1973: Oakland 12,355, SF 10,299
    1974: Oakland 10,441, SF 6,420
    1975: Oakland 13,278, SF 6,456
    1976: Oakland 9,697, SF 7,739
    1981: Oakland 23,928, SF 7,806
    1982: Oakland 21,426, SF 14,827
    1983: Oakland 15,987, SF 15,451
    1984: Oakland 16,707, SF 12,365
    1985: Oakland 16,477, SF 10,107
    1988: Oakland 28,239, SF 22,041
    1989: Oakland 32,929, SF 25,428
    1990: Oakland 35,805, SF 24,389
    1991: Oakland 33,500, SF 21,450
    1992: Oakland 30,792, SF 19,272
    1995: Oakland 16,310, SF 15,327”

    These stats completely dispell the myth that the Giants have always been the “bay area favorite”. The A’s outdrew the giants 17 out of the 32 years when the giant’s played at the ‘Stick (how can that be considered domination by the giants organization and fans?) And the A’s really started dominating during the LaRussa years (when Lurie gave up on the bay area and sold the giants to the Tampa Bay group) So Matt Versergian (who considers himself an A’s fan) is clearly wrong when he claims that the giants have always been the favorite of the bay area media and that the A’s have always been the down-trodden underdogs.

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