San Jose Muni as a temporary ballpark? Come on, now

The Merc and NBC Bay Area are reporting that San Jose Municipal Stadium is being considered as a temporary ballpark site should the A’s not get a lease extension past 2015.

The idea makes zero sense.

At 4,200 seats, Muni is far too small to work as a temp park. There’s not enough space behind the old grandstand to build the extra seats and a new press box that MLB would require. Even the area beyond the outfield is limited, so little seating could be built there. Muni is set up so that the clubhouses are on the same level as the single concourse, requiring the park to be quickly emptied of fans after every game. The lack of parking and public transit at the site would make it a logistical nightmare for daily 20,000-person crowds.

About the only thing Muni has going for it is that it’s a baseball field with some seats around it. That’s not the expensive part. It’s everything else (additional seats, suites, infrastructure) that’s expensive.

Using Muni makes even less sense when you consider that the City of San Jose inked its own five-year extension with the San Jose Giants only two months ago. While the lease is quite cheap at $25,000 per year, naming rights to Muni are involved and the fact is that the City would have to break the lease to accommodate the A’s.

I understand that Lew Wolff will look at a number of sites and facilities to get a feel for what’s possible. A temporary ballpark at San Jose Muni is more than a little far-fetched.


P.S. – Candlestick Park was also reported to be in the discussion, but demolition is expected later this year.

122 thoughts on “San Jose Muni as a temporary ballpark? Come on, now

  1. It’s more than far fetched… It’s not possible. If, and that’s a big if, Wolff was actually considering Muni his “temporary stadium” response to Baer just lost a lot of credibility.

  2. San Jose Muni was never a consideration. No one ever asked me about that tiny location.

  3. Agree that Muni is a non-starter. However, I disagree that the area can’t handle 20k folks for events; see neighboring Spartan Stadium for details.

  4. Tony, if you’d ever been to one of the rare times Spartan has 20k+… the area can’t handle it. Alma and the roads up to 280 are a mess. And parking is a disaster.

  5. Candlestick Park would be the best and most logical venue of all the considered options to be used as a temporary home for the A’s. The fact that the facility has been in operation up to most recently is a huge advantage. The biggest costs to getting Candlestick in operation will be the cost to getting the facility back to a baseball configuration. The loudest objections to the possible use of Candlestick will likely come from the Giants. The Giants would not want for the A’s to be playing in their own backyard, especially if it’s for an indefinite period of time. Another selling point for Candlestick is its central Bay Area location, relatively accessible by car. As for accessibility to public transit, shuttle buses would be run to rail connections, and direct Express bus service would be run to various Bay Area locations.

  6. Agreed. Most of the “big event” parking for Muni was taken up when Logitech Ice started expanding all over hell’s half acre down there at 10th and Senter.

    I’m sure somebody, somewhere would suggest that VTA could help with bus bridges from downtown parking garages and Tamien Station. (/chucklesnort)

    The only place where there would be any additional parking for a 20K baseball crowd at Muni would be on SJSU property. Regrettably for the A’s, Mr. Wolff and SJSU have a long, fine and well-established history of not seeing eye-to-eye when it comes to the use of the South Campus area.

  7. Mr. Wolff: Is that really you? Thanks for keeping the team in the Bay Area. We know some other party would prefer to see the franchise leave.

  8. There’s a difference between SPartan Stadium being used for football game son Saturday and Muni being used 81 times.

  9. Only fools would believe the A’s would be allowed to move to SF let alone SJ even for a temporary period. If forced to vacate the coliseum while construction of a new ballpark was underway on THAT site (the only scenario that MLB would allow the A’s to move on a temp basis), they would no doubt play during that time in Vegas, Sacramento, etc as they did some time ago.

    Lots of fools lurk here.

  10. Hey, Glenn: Do you think the East Bay is as economically viable for the A’s as the South Bay? Both the A’s and Raiders have pointed out the lack of corporate support in the East Bay. Since Oakland has no money for stadiums and the corporate support isn’t there, do you think the A’s and Raiders should just build stadiums without regard to return on investment?

  11. all of this talk about Muni is completely useless–LW never said anything about it–Mayor Reed did and then went on to say later in the article that Muni would be too small–would be alot more interesting to understand more about criteria for a temporary venue, costs, where its been done etc than speculate on whether or not Muni is a contender for a temporary ballpark. Reality is all of this comes down to what the Raiders decide—sounds like its now summer before anything might come out of oakland on this-

  12. A washed out dickbag calling people fools. That’s rich.

  13. @Dan and Jeffrey,
    I stand corrected on the “ease” of movement out of the Spartan/Muni area re Spartan Stadium. It’s been years since I graduated from SJSU or attended a football game there. Anyone know the average attendance for Spartan football games?
    Speaking of fools…(that was hilarious!)

  14. ML is 100% correct that San Jose Muni is a non-starter. Too small and the infrastructure of the ballpark and area in general simply does not work.

    Candlestick would be logical but the issue is SF has it earmarked for demolition later this year or early 2015 as with no tenant the upkeep on the place is 1M a year or so. Before the 49ers covered that amount with rent, there would have to be a deal struck with the A’s and the City of SF by the end of this season to use the place for baseball.

    Plus the the right field bleachers have been stuck in football configuration for over a decade now, it will take some major work to retract them, plus the seats on the 1st base line have been removed and would need to be replaced as well.

    This is a fun discussion but I believe in the end MLB will not let the A’s play in a temp ballpark for this BIG reason and that is revenue sharing.

    The A’s are getting 40M-50M now in the Coliseum from the revenue sharing pool.

    Imagine a temp ballpark? They would need a 70M-80M subsidy to survive. Perhaps more, meaning the other 29 owners would be paying out of their pockets for the A’s to function in a “temp ballpark”. It makes zero sense and that is the “elephant in the room” we are all missing here.

    It is just too logical to not put both teams in ATT Park on a temp basis. The revenue sharing issue kills the temp ballpark piece 100%.

    At least in ATT Park the A’s have suites and club sections they can revenue share with the Giants, they may need less of a subsidy to survive in that scenario.

    Lay it to rest on the temp ballpark, it will never happen for these reasons.

  15. MLB at Muni–too funny. It’s not without its charms, and I’ve spent plenty of time and money there over the years, but it’s a barely adequate as a Class A ballpark.

    I had to go to the SJ Giants Marketing office once, they had three desks crammed into a space smaller than my bathroom. The person with the rear desk couldn’t access it unless the person near the door stepped outside. You’d need an a fleet of doublewides for office space, an probably have to close Alma and Senter in the area for parking (or hi-rise bleachers.)

    The Quakes and Spartans had sizable crowds on occasion a few years ago, but those were weekends and people tended to arrive over a period of a few hours to tailgate. They used the athletic fields for overflow parking; that’s the only way you can reasonably do over 10K in that area. (Maybe they still do, I haven’t been to Spartan in years.)

    The Fairgrounds (which they’ve also mentioned as an option) isn’t any better. They had a 5K fun run on a Friday night 2 weeks ago that drew 14K. Gridlock in all directions. Took us from 5:10 to 6:15 to get from Tully/101 to the parking lot. 20-25K, all arriving in the same 60-90 minute window? Forget it.

  16. @Sid, I agree with you that the temporary sharing of AT&T Park makes the most sense, If the A’s are forced to vacate the Coliseum before a new permanent ballpark is built. However, as long as the uncertainty continues regarding the A’s future, both the A’s and the Giants are continuing to be in a posturing mode. The A’s current lease is for two more seasons to play at the Coliseum. Ideally, an agreement between MLB and the A’s on a permanent Bay Area ballpark site could happen before the current lease ends. If that does happen, I do not see the Giants gaining anything by not allowing the A’s to temporarily share AT&T Park. If anything, it would be a very strong negative mark against the Giants within both MLB and the Bay Area MLB fan base, especially if the A’a are ultimately forced to vacate the Coliseum. I do see a resolution coming sooner than later, and all these other side issues will work itself out, too.

  17. @ Glenn D

    I wait with anxious anticipation for your inane posts. Now go slither back into your Saddam Hussein rat hole for a few weeks. BTW – you should give your 3 subscribers their money back because what you sell them is simply NOT journalism.

  18. This post is annoying because the original quote from Lew does not mention Muni at all.

  19. I get so tired of this, I wish Lew Wolff would just pull an Al Davis on MLB ass’s, and let the cards fall where they may.
    Just start building at Dirdon today (start the process), and say to hell with it, or work out the best solution you can in Oakland, if Fremont really can’t be done.
    I am sure you guys have thought of this, but if the Giants TR’s are so strong, why did MLB allow Wolff to negotiate with San Jose at all?, well at least to the point, where he could get an agreement on a land purchase option?, furthermore why did the BRC expand their search, to San Jose (outside A’s current territory), if the Giants claims where so irrefutable? It could not have been done simply to scare Oakland, could it? Like many of you I just sick of this crap.

  20. re: why did the BRC expand their search, to San Jose (outside A’s current territory)

    …Because the BRC looked in the A’s current territory and couldn’t find anything. The Giants know this full well but still insist the A’s and MLB keep looking in the current territory. The Giants want the A’s confined to a territory where MLB has spent 5 years failing to find a solution. And add on several years more to that when Schott and Wolff also couldn’t find anything. What team players the Giants are. “San Jose is OURS and you can’t have it!” And obviously, the Giants could not care less about San Jose’s own desire to pursue MLB and get a team.

  21. @Lakeshore,

    The T-Rights aren’t really “that strong” because territorial rights have changed/been altered many times in MLB’s past: geographic and TV. Again, it’s all about the payoff…

  22. @ Tony D.
    Well they sure as hell need to be changed in the Bay Area.

  23. I’m with you Steven…

  24. Tony, you say “territorial rights have changed/been altered many times in MLB’s past …”

    Can you cite oh say 5 or 6 times the actual territorial rights to a franchise has been changed in a similar way. Since it’s happened “many” times, you should have no trouble giving me these 5 or 6 examples.

  25. @J.I.,

    There’s nothing similar about the Bay Area in MLB’s history: i.e. two-team market that isn’t a shared territory. So no, not possible to give 5 or 6 EXACT examples. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re asking a serious question (not trying to be a jack ass), so here are a few examples for yah:

    1) Bay Area pre-1958 was Boston Red Sox territory due to their affiliation with the PCL San Francisco Seals. Compromised to allow New York Giants to relocate to San Francisco.
    2) Expansion Angels and Mets in LA/NY metros. Territories altered to include new franchises in geographic region.
    3) Expos relocation to Washington DC. TV territorial rights of Baltimore Orioles compromised to allow second franchise in Balt/Wash metro area

    As there have been other relocations, expansions in MLB’s history there has also been other territorial changes. Hopefully this has answered your question; have a great day!

  26. Tony, got another one for yah …

    2014 – Sacramento area amended to include Oakland A’s … Rivercats move to Oakland.

  27. @LSNeil – I’m all with you on an Al Davis FU-to-MLB move, however LW’s friendship seems to be both a blessing and a curse, since he doesn’t want to do this during his frat brother’s reign. 😦

  28. @RS,
    Thanks for that info. Apparently the entire Bay Area was once Red Sox territory due to deep affiliations; very interesting.
    Curious, do you know who’s territory Sac falls under now? I’ll tell yah what, if the A’s ever did wind up in Sac permanently I’M MOVING TO SAC AS WELL.

  29. I think the SJ Muni talk was just Reed trying to ruffle the Giants’ feathers.

    Which is a worthwhile objective.

  30. @steven

    Yeah I was thinking the same thing.

  31. Re Twitter feed: if getting a new Raiders stadium means Colony gets 40% stake, COME ON MARK DAVIS! Make it happen! I assume the Davis Family would still have 60% controlling interest (?).

  32. @ RM,

    Thanks for info. Isn’t Mark Davis and da Raiders desperate re getting a new stadium?

  33. Thanks again RM. You da man brah!

  34. Mark Davis owns 47% of the team.

  35. If Davis owns 47% of his team, and no other major sources of income (like the other owners),and if he has many choices, as ML said he is a very fortunate man.

  36. Mark Davis needs to name his poison: (1) give up 40% ownership to the Colony group and build at CC; (2) Move to LA – possibly also requiring giving up a huge chunk of ownership and a stadium share with the Rams; (3)moving to Levi’s Stadium (gasp)and playing with the Niners.

    The best choice – #3 (least of the three evils) – moving to Levi’s stadium (Davis won’t need to sell the farm by moving there – and would need to share an LA stadium with the Rams if moving to LA anyways)

  37. @ duffer,

    Damn straight! I’d personally choose your 1) with 3) as the interim.

  38. Also, if the Raiders move to Santa Clara – that would be a major insult to Los Angeles NFL fans – tiny Santa Clara hosting two NFL teams – while Los Angeles has zero!

  39. Didn’t AEG want partial ownership of the team? He would be better of moving to LA if no other team is going to move down to LA in the foreseeable future and no deal can be reached in Oakland. Like ML says the man has options..Oakland, LA, London, and Santa Clara just to name a few…

    2014 is going to be interesting for Oakland sports. I would really pay attention to Raiders officials after their regular season game in London. Not a betting man but if the Raiders can’t get a deal done in state they will be the franchise moving across the pond.

  40. AEG and Roski both want partial ownership, which leads to two problems for the Raiders. First, neither wanted, at least as of a few years ago when they were talking, to pay anything close to market value – they wanted equity in any team in return for building a stadium, and then wanted to keep the revenues from the facility too; in other words a total non-starter for any NFL team. The other issue is that even if AEG or Roski wanted to pay market value for a share, Davis just doesn’t have enough of the team to sell them much, while retaining the 30% necessary to keep control of the team per NFL rules. As was said, the Davis’ owned 47% when Al died, although ML has mentioned that Mark was trying to acquire some of the limited partners’ interest, so maybe that’s risen. Contrast that with the Spanos family, who own over 90% of the Chargers. If AEG or Roski wanted to pay up, they could easily sell 40% for a ton of money, and still keep control.

    As for London, in a word, no. It’s the new stalking horse in the event LA finally gets a team, and it’s also a way to string European fans along and keep them interested beyond the initial spectacle of the NFL. Too many logistical nightmares in moving one team that far away.

  41. Here are Mark Davis’ choices and they are “not many”:

    1. Rot in the Coliseum as is
    2. Share a brand new state of the art stadium with the 49ers in SC. Without having to make a capital investment and retain his full stake.
    3. Sell 40% of the team to Colony Capital and build in Oakland (In this scenario Davis gets his “own” stadium)
    4. Sell 40% of the team to AEG or Roski and move to LA. (A 2nd team will more than likely be forced in)
    5. Call Stan Kroenke with the Rams and build at Hollywood Park like his Dad should have done years ago, like the AEG/Roski scenario he has to share with a 2nd NFL team but would not have to sell 40% of his team.

    Only in scenario 1 and 3 he gets his own stadium and that is in Oakland. So those are in reality his “only” choices. Rot as is or sell out to Colony Capital.

    Davis could ask his minority investors to sell a piece of the 40% required but now he is negotiating on multiple fronts.

    Davis isn’t that smart guys, more than likely he rots at the Coliseum for years to come out of pure stubbornness.

  42. I don’t know how accurate the report could be that Colony Capital wants 40% of the Raiders. Well I am sure they want 40%, but they had to know going into this, that was not going to be possible.
    Davis being able to purchase minority shares, could get Colony about 15%-20%, plus the development right at the coliseum, for whatever that’s worth, looks like the only way Davis gets a new stadium is if he leaves his ownership stake in the team to an investment group after his death.

  43. So Forbes estimates the Raiders value at $825M–Lets say its a 1B–40% of that is equal to $400M dollars that the Raiders in essence contribute to get a new stadium. As ML pointed out a stadium only declines in value v. a team that increases in value. My question–where does the other $600M come from and how much of this would be city of Oakland’s contribution–seems like a huge funding gap in making this happen. As Amy Trask pointed out there are only so many corporate dollars to go around throughout the bay area and with the ‘9ers new stadium, W’s new arena, EQ new stadium, Raiders and A’s potential new stadiums–all with a significant portion to be funded by corporate sponsorship/suite sales etc—

  44. Most of you have taken care of much of what I was going to write in a post this week. Davis’s issues are, How badly does he want this new stadium? and How much is he willing to give up to get it?. There may be creative ways he can accrue debt without getting rid of much of his Raiders stake, but I suspect he doesn’t want to get into those. Either staying at the current Coliseum or moving to Santa Clara are the easiest choices, but also the most revenue-limited. It’s up to Davis to bear the risk. He’s waiting for Oakland to make a decision to get rid of the A’s, but the decision is really his to make.

  45. @ML

    You are right bro…Davis or really his mom (if she is mentally aware at her age) needs to make a decision on the Raiders goin forward…

    The “Raiders” died October 2011 …back then were 4-2 and atop the AFC west..we were a team ready to finally make a playoff contending push under Davis/Hue Jackson team…however the maverick died and the Raiders collapsed down the stretch… so maybe its time to retire the Old Raiders and start the new”Raiders” with new ownership and management. not to sure if Colony Capital knows anything about football…the Raiders need a Robert Kraft type owner not a Jimmy Haslam (cough cough lawsuit)…so I do hope Carol and Mark Davis consider getting as much money possible and sell a majority if not 95% of whatever they own in the Raiders and start a new…good luck Davis and I hope he makes a choice soon

  46. Also one more thing which is obvious…a new Raider stadium= helping the A’s get San Jose or some type of resolution vs the SF Giants…the giants will either have to share or the A’s have the freedom to play anywhere in the bay area or Sacramento “temporary” and get more fan support

  47. @ML- LW has already indicated he wouldn’t stand in the way of the Raides and Oakland partnership- he will step out of the way and seems to be going down that path with his temporary stadium concept- so Davis shouldn’t have to wait for the A’s to depart- he just needs to say I’m in for developing a new stadium for raiders or will stay in what we have- later allows the A’s to stay-

  48. In doing nothing about the A’s for years and years, Bud Selig with his limited ability for foresight has created a situation where the A’s may no longer have a place to play. He thought he could just ignore the situation and keep the status quo forever. Another embarrassment for Selig’s resume, along with steroids, cancelling the ’94 World Series, the All Star game with no winner, etc…

  49. A little odd that last year as the deal was in the process of floundering, Wolff was adamant that a deal would be reached to stay in the Coli. Now, only months after extending it two years and not long after saying he’s interested in extending it even longer, he’s more publicly (if you can call it that) examining alternate temporarily sites. While that should be expected given the situation for the sake of due-diligence and shouldn’t necessarily be seen as a sign of how thing are going, but I do have to wonder if he’s received any sort of signal from Oakland/JPA/Davis that they’re moving forward with the Raiders and he’ll need an alternative in 2 years.

  50. If Mark Davis does ultimately decide to move the Raiders to Santa Clara, I do believe that an escape clause will be put in the lease. It will allow the Raiders to break their lease and return to Oakland if, at some future point in time, the Raiders can work a new Stadium deal with Oakland. It could also allow the Raiders to return to a renovated Coliseum, as well.

  51. dmoas: I suspect what might be happening is Oakland probably wants an even longer airtight lease with the A’s that Wolff can only get out of if a new stadium is built in Oakland.

  52. Mark Davis wants a stadium “bad”, but he wants his “own stadium” and will not share unless it is last ditch and even then its doubtful.

    40% is an estimate but lets say that # is 30% and the value of the Raiders is 825M.

    30% x 825= $250M
    Raiders put in $300M
    NFL is in with 200M

    You have 750M total but lets assume Davis gives up only 15% with the minority investors giving up 15% themselves, Davis still has controlling share and a new stadium in Oakland.

    The stadium was estimated at 800M, so the gap is around 50M+ or so. Not a huge amount.

    LA is a non-starter for having to share a stadium so lets throw that out the window for arguments sake.

    Is Davis really interested in Portland or San Antonio? Or who ever will throw public dollars his way? That is the real wild card here, if a hotel or car tax was put in place in one of these cities then would Davis bite?

    If so, will the NFL let him leave the Bay Area without first trying to share with the 49ers first in SC?

  53. Does MLB really believe Lew Wolff should share AT&T with the Giants for seven years!? The roadmap for the A’s to sign onto Coli City after the Raiders does not provide a home stadium until 2022 (if all parties meet deadlines). With a lease expiring in 2015, it’ll be seven years (2015 to 2022) of temp housing for Coli to work for the A’s. This just isn’t reasonable or possible if you ask me. Coli City is dead for A’s as soon as the Raiders sign this summer.

  54. If that massive Mission Bay Fire had spread to 3rd/King, and the Giants needed a “temporary” ballpark for a few weeks/months…where would they play? Candlestick? Oakland? Fresno? Muni?

  55. The California piece of the SJ lawsuit is being moved to LA.

    MLB doesn’t want the case so close to SJ interests according to the merc.

    Huh?? LA is all Giants haters! Santa Cruz is in Giants territory technically.


  56. @ Sid
    Nice brake down of the economic situation the Raiders face at Coliseum City, I was wondering if we should not add another element, which would be the amount Bay IG would kick in for receiving the land and development rights to that land, perhaps we could be looking at $100-$150
    I have a question though, you listed 30% x 825= $250M (shares of Raiders), and Raiders put in $300M, isn’t it conceivable that the Raiders may have been looking at the shares they may grant to Bay IG as part of what would make up the 300m that you have them putting in?

  57. “Does MLB really believe Lew Wolff should share AT&T with the Giants for seven years!?”

    @Steven, I agree! However, On a short-term basis, and if the A’s get approval to build their ballpark on the site of their own choosing, it shouldn’t be a problem. In fact, this arrangement could be part of the fence mending between both teams, especially if the added revenues generated from having the A’s as short-term tenants are deemed as part of a compensation package to the Giants. On the other hand, if the A’s and MLB are still not yet in agreement on a permanent new ballpark site, Wolff would not want to have his A’s sharing AT&T park, even for a short-time. Wolff would view this as rewarding the Giants, for blocking his A’s from moving to the Bay Area ballpark site of its own choosing.

  58. @LSN- The Raiders have made according to since 2004 around 140M in Net Income.

    So therefore that leads to me to believe with that 140M plus investment from the minority investors the 300M should not be an issue. I also think (not sure on this) that Al or Mark sold a piece of the team to minority investors a few years back so the entire 300M should not be an issue.

    Lets assume Bay IG or Colony Capital buying a piece of the Raiders is the 300M the Raiders have pledged to the project then this whole is over before it started.

    Then the funding gap is 250M-300M and unless Oakland fills the gap there is no chance of this happening. So logically it would make sense the Raiders amount is separate from the Colony Capital/Bay IG piece.

    But then again these are the Raiders! I just hope they draft Johnny Manziel, that guy is going to be a stud in the NFL and I want to watch him play.

    He is the perfect Oakland Raider

  59. @IIpec- If the A’s share ATT Park with the Giants it would be “hurting” the Giants not “rewarding” them.

    If they share, then the A’s all of a sudden have access to club seating, field club seating, and luxury suites they lack now. Not to mention the ballpark itself being a jewel and being the eye sore the Coliseum is.

    Even in a revenue sharing scenario with the Giants (80/20 or 70/30), the A’s would be able to increase payroll by 25% or so without having to make a capital investment into the stadium itself.

    The A’s would become the SF Athletics and be like the LA Clippers are to the LA Lakers in Staples Center. A cheaper alternative and their attendance would increase by 15%-25% as well.

    Now imagine if the A’s were super good (95 wins) and the Giants suck (75 wins), it would be a nightmare for the Giants watching their tenant in a pennant chase on their field.

    Fans would flock to A’s games in ATT Park in a big way if the team was good. That ballpark is simply that beautiful and well located.

    Hence why Baer says only “temporarily” and that is if Oakland get its head out of its ass not San Jose.

    It would serve the Giants right to share indefinitely their ballpark for all the grief they are causing by their greed and selfishness.

  60. @ Sid
    Thanks, I think the Raiders and Colony Capital can work this out, it seems like Davis really wants to. I hope Manziel falls to them; we could use some good news after yesterday (loss of 3 top tier free agents at their positions.), then we overpay for a player with lesser talent.

  61. I find it hilarious that the Oakland-only crowd wants LW to sell the A’s if he plans to leave. However, Mark Davis gets a free pass, even after getting $200M to build the monstrosity that is Mt. Davis to be built for the Raiders. See what difference in TRights does to one’s perception?

  62. @Anon
    Not that I agree with the Oakland-only crowed, but I believe the only reason they want him to sell (most of them), is so someone that is willing to build in Oakland can parches the team. The difference being Davis presumably wants to try to build in Oakland before looking somewhere ells, and Wolff has already looked at Oakland (how hard is debatable), and has said he won’t build in Oakland.
    I have often stated my point of view with the Raiders, and SF Warriors getting a free pass, and I have also been critical of Lew and his few misstep’s (my opinion), but in regards to the specific point of the Oakland- only crowed wanting his to sell, that’s one of the more reasonable assertions they could make, Wolff has said he won’t build in Oakland, which I don’t personally believe (would have to be the right situation though), but if I was an Oakland only person, and believed that, I would want him to sale the team to someone who would build in Oakland.
    I am sure if Davis came out today, and said he is leaving for LA after the season, most of those same people would want him to sale the Raiders to someone, who would build in Oakland, granted there are those in the Oakland-only crowd that just seem to hate Wolff no matter what he does, would be interesting to see what they thought of him if he built in Oakland, not that it’s his first choice or anything but it would be interesting, since many of these people have totally trashed the man.

  63. @Sid, I agree with you that the Giants would not really be too happy sharing their beautiful AT&T Park, even for a short-term stay, regardless of where the A’s get their new ballpark. Wait, I take that back! The Giants would be more than happy to share their ballpark with the A’s on a short-term basis, provided that the A’s had a definitive commitment to relocate to outside the Bay Area market. For example, Wolff had sold the A’s to out of town interests, and were just waiting for ballpark completion in the new A’s market. That said, the Giants will follow MLB precedence to do the correct neighborly thing, swallow their selfish pride, and allow the A’s to share their ballpark on a short-term basis. Throughout MLB history, there were numerous times when ballclubs from two team markets temporarily shared the same facility, during times when one of its teams were without the use of its own ballpark. The Giants, Yankees, and Mets had temporarily used the other ones respective ballpark in New York. The Angels played at Dodger Stadium for four years before their own ballpark was completed in Anaheim. The Giants will serve to only hurt their own image within MLB if they continue their spiteful selfish ways. The Giants know full well that they may be getting to that point.

  64. @llpec: Sharing a ballpark for 3-4 years is one thing, sharing a stadium for 7-10 years (delays will most likely happen) is completely different. AT&T is not a legitimate option for the A’s.

  65. Hey I just want to see the A’s w/o a home soon or play in a temp smallish stadium somewhere. Will see if other ML teams complains about the facility or inadequate access or whatever. It would be hilarious. BS does not care anymore. it will be the new commish’s problem after this year

  66. @IIpec- I agree the Giants would be more than willing to share if the A’s were on their way out of the Bay Area.

    Baer is simply posturing when he says if they build in Oakland it would be the “neighborly” thing to do. He knows damn well all options in the East Bay have been exhausted and he and Neukom almost shit a brick when Wolff tried pulling of the “San Jose A’s of Fremont”.

    @Steven- ATT Park is far more of a legit option than you think. If the Raiders come to an agreement at the Coliseum site then its the only option regardless if it is 3-4 years or 7-10 years.

    A temp ballpark would require so much revenue sharing (far more than today) MLB would not let it happen and pigeon hole the A’s with the Giants indefinitely.

  67. daniel makes a great point!

    If the other teams complain about the Coliseum think about a temp ballpark? LOL!!

  68. so here are a few examples for yah:

    1) Bay Area pre-1958 was Boston Red Sox territory due to their affiliation with the PCL San Francisco Seals. Compromised to allow New York Giants to relocate to San Francisco.
    2) Expansion Angels and Mets in LA/NY metros. Territories altered to include new franchises in geographic region.
    3) Expos relocation to Washington DC. TV territorial rights of Baltimore Orioles compromised to allow second franchise in Balt/Wash metro area

    As there have been other relocations, expansions in MLB’s history there has also been other territorial changes. Hopefully this has answered your question; have a great day!

    Tony D, you are mixing up a bunch of very different concepts and confusing them with the territorial rights that each team currently has in the MLB Constitution.

    1) the Bay Area was never Boston Red Sox territory. Pre-1958 it was divided between the SF Seals and the Oakland Oaks. Under the National Agreement rules that have been around since about 1910, minor league rights can be overridden at any time by a major league team, provided compensation is paid.

    2). Angels, Mets, etc. happened when the NL and AL were separate leagues. The Dodgers, for example, never had exclusive rights to LA, only exclusive National League rights. Those rights weren’t impacted by the Angels. This is also why the Giants couldn’t do anything but whine when the AL decided to allow the A’s to move to Oakland. No Giants t-rights were affected.

    3) the Expos/Nationals situation did not involve t-rights at all, only broadcast rights. The hurdles for changing broadcast rights are much lower than for t-rights — the MLB Executive Committee has the right to change them at any time. In that case, MLB decided to compensate the Orioles anyway (which they could afford to do because DC was paying for the stadium), but contractually it was not required.

    I’m not saying T-rights can’t or won’t be changed. But since the formation of MLB 20 years ago and adoption of the t-rights article, there is no precedent for any franchise losing exclusive rights to any part of its contractual territory. Within MLB’s legal framework, it is an extremely high hurdle to cross.

  69. @Simon94022: What about the precedent set by the former ownership of the A’s – voluntarily giving up land for the betterment of all of baseball?

  70. “Since the formation of MLB 20 years ago”? (many giants fans fantazise that MLB began play in 2000, so that comment is not surprising) The MLB ATE is very outdated – technology and the way MLB teams now earn their revenue make it completely obsolete. For example, the Dodgers recently inked a $8.25 bil. 25 year tv cable rights deal ($330 mil. annually) with Turner Sports network (based in Atlanta). The Yankees’ YES network (the Yankees receive $300 mil. annually from YES) was recently purchased by Fox sports (based in LA)Both teams now receive a majority of their revenue from out of state sources. The A’s receive $43 mil. yearly from Comcast (based in Philadelphia) How the MLB ATE now could be considered “intra-state business only” is comical. Furthermore, the SCOTUS last ruled on the MLB in 1976 (it barely squeaked by then) – this was before ESPN, cable tv, Ipads, tablets, Android devices, the internet – all of this techology has completely changed the way MLB teams (and MLB itself) make revenue. The MLB ATE has become a silly, badly outdated law and will likely soon be oveturned by the higher courts or Congress (that’s why MLB has cut deals in the past (to avoid a court overturning it)


    This part leave a bad taste in my mouth:

    “To the extent that MLB’s exemption is even legally appropriate anymore, San Jose stressed that it was meant to apply only to baseball’s labor rules restricting the movement of players from team to team, not to a team’s efforts to move to a new city.”

    Oh, so San Jose wants break the ATE for the Steinbrenners of the world, but not the guys doing working in the field?


  72. @Simon94022: What about the precedent set by the former ownership of the A’s – voluntarily giving up land for the betterment of all of baseball?

    That isn’t what happened. The A’s did not have territorial rights to Santa Clara County — no one did. Haas simply agreed that the Giants could have them (this was pre-MLB, but starting in the 1970s the NL and AL had formal agreements to respect each other’s territorial rights).

    By the way, what Haas did created a unique limitation on Santa Clara County rights. The Giants only have the right to exclude other major league teams from playing there. That’s probably why they bought the SJ Giants, because nothing prevents the A’s or any other team from having a minor league affiliate there. The SJ Giants hold the single A California league rights, but it is open territory for a AA or AAA team that wanted to move in.

    So while the A’s themselves cannot relocate to San Jose, the River Cats could.

  73. Since the formation of MLB 20 years ago”? (many giants fans fantazise that MLB began play in 2000, so that comment is not surprising)

    Not sure I follow you on that, duffer. MLB was created in the mid 1990s out of the merger of the National League and the American League. That is relevant here because as part of the merger the MLB franchises adopted a partnership agreement, the MLB Constitution, which specifies in detail the geographic territories in which a team can exclude all other teams from playing home games. Those are the t-rights at issue today, and they are very different from the AAA rights of the Seals in 1958, or the National League rights of the Giants in 1968.

  74. @ Simon,

    You talk a good game, but in the end you’re full of it just like many other Oakland only/ PRO – SF here. YES, the Bay Area was once BoSox territory and YES, geographic and television territory’s have been changed/altered many times in baseball history. Trying to argue otherwise or trying to make the Giants claim sacrosanct is foolish!

    Freddy: speaking of LAME… ( that was easy)

  75. @Simon94022/ Tony D.
    You bring up some really interesting points; and you defiantly have some knowledge on the subject, but just because something is difficult to-do, or “technically”, has not happened in the past does not mean it can’t happen in the future.
    I think Toney’s point is that MLB has altered, or modified its territory’s in the past, which indicates they may do it in the future, not saying they will or won’t this thing could go either way, but we are not talking about the Geneva peace accords or anything that serious, if San Jose came up with 200-250 million in tax revenue tomorrow this too difficult, not likely, never quite done before situation, would all of a sudden be doable.
    It would be like “Wow MLB took care of the A’s move to San Jose rather quickly once they made up their mind”

  76. Sorry: “I think Tony’s point”

  77. @ Lakeshore,

    The problem with some here is that (they believe) just because an EXACT case like the Bay Area hasn’t ever existed in MLB ‘ S history (I.e. Two team market that isn’t shared) that the problem can’t be rectified. This notion is completely false; hence why San Jose IS being considered by MLB for the new home of our A’s. Simply put: things change (especially if it means more money for all)

  78. @ Tony D.
    The sooner the better.

  79. You talk a good game, but in the end you’re full of it just like many other Oakland only/ PRO – SF here. YES, the Bay Area was once BoSox territory and YES, geographic and television territory’s have been changed/altered many times in baseball history.

    Thanks for the carefully reasoned response, Tony D. Alas, you continue to mix up unrelated concepts in search of a precedent for revising territorial rights.

    In 1958 the Seals held AAA territorial rights to San Francisco (not the Bay Area). The Seals happened to be owned by the Red Sox. The Seals’ rights did not include ability to veto a major league team moving in. It did, however, entitle the Seals to compensation which had to be negotiated and ultimately could have been subject to arbitration by the Commissioner. The compensation consisted of a small cash payment (less than $250k) and a minor league franchise swap.

    These are not the same kind of territorial rights outlined in the MLB Constitution. The Giants have a right to veto any other major league team operating in Santa Clara County, no matter how much compensation is offered or what the Commissioner personally prefers (and no, those rights are expressly not subject to change under the famous “best interest of baseball clause). Any change requires an amendment to the MLB Constitution approved by 3/4 of the owners.

    Could this happen? Absolutely. Should it happen? Probably. Is it likely to happen? No. If you think involves a routine change in rights more or less the same as many other changes in baseball history, you might want to ask yourself why it hasn’t happened yet.

    • @Simon94022 – Can you show me where this veto provision is in the MLB Constitution? I see it cited every so often, yet I’ve never seen it. The territories are in there (prior to realignment) and the 3/4 owner vote apparatus.

  80. @Simon,

    Holding that dictionary while typing must get very tiring. Again, you talk up a good game my friend; I’ll commend you for that. That said, to bad you’re so focused on the Giants territorial rights supposedly being sacrosanct and are completely closing your eyes to MLB history. If you don’t want to believe that territories (both geo/TV) have been changed/altered AND CAN STILL be changed/altered, I don’t know what else to tell you. It’s your world Simon.

    BTW; why hasn’t it happened yet? None of us know the answer to that question (perhaps Rhamesis being the exception). You don’t know and I don’t know. If you go by whats been put out on this blog, it’s most likely “all about the payoff,” not because territories are somehow cherished/sacred or can’t be changed (as you are desperately trying to imply). Any questions?

  81. BTW, the power that you portray the Giants having over MLB (ie veto powers) is complete nonsense; a LIE in laymans terms. MLB owns all operating territories AND licenses them to the individual franchises. No team has that kind of power over the league or commissioners office. It’s utterly amazing that you continue to bring milk into this bar with your “Giants are holier than holy” bull shit. Again, it’s your world Simon; reside in it as you must…

  82. @Simon94022- You speak as if MLB is above the law. In any other business or sport for that matter to restrict a business or municipality by geographical location is against the law in every way possible.

    MLB may have their own rules and that is fine. But MLB is not one entity they are in fact 30 separate businesses. Granted they have to collaborate with one another for marketing, scheduling of games, rule changes, and even franchise relocation.

    But it must be weighed against a “rule of reason” first, this how the LA Coliseum Authority won in the 1980s with the Raiders.

    The jury ruled despite the NFL having a say in the location where teams play it must be weighed against a “rule of reason”. The NFL did not want the Raiders to invade the “Rams territory”. Sound familiar?

    If a franchise can make more money, sell more tickets, get more corporate sponsors by moving moving to a more lucrative market then no one can stop them by law.

    In the case of the Raiders they moved from Oakland sharing the Bay Area with the 49ers to LA sharing a far bigger market with the Rams.

    This applies to municipalities as well. If a municipality can attract a business by discounted land, tax breaks, permit expediting to create a better environment for that business no can stop them. Hence the LA Coliseum Authority winning in court on this argument. The A’s have made it clear they want to move to San Jose and have entered a Option Agreement.

    MLB should be facilitating the move not blocking it and there is no “rule of reason” to justify their case outside of T-rights which hold no water.

    In this case, San Jose is obviously a far more lucrative market than Oakland and that is hardly debatable, “rule of reason” right there.

    San Jose has an agreement to sell land to the A’s, a completed EIR, waited 5 years for the BRC to make a decision and a detailed economic impact report citing possible tax revenues to the city for general services. This stuff is not “theoretical” and can be compared to other cities who have MLB teams (I.E. SF and SD are perfect example in state). “Rule of reason” again.

    Any revenue loss by the Giants in irrelevant in court as they are in fact a competing business to the A’s.

    These T-rights you speak about are not going to hold up in the 9th Circuit. The history of T-rights does not matter, every business must play by the same rules and the 3/4 vote by the owners is a moot point. It has not happened yet because “Selig refuses to call a vote”.

    The NFL owners voted 22-0 with 5 owners abstaining against the move for the Raiders moving to LA. That held up really well in court didn’t it?

  83. @ Simon94022
    Again as I said earlier you make some really valid an interesting points, but I have a question for you (not trying to be a smart ass), Why do you think MLB allow Wolff to negotiate with San Jose at all? If the Giants claims on San Jose are so tight, how is it that they were even allowed to do something even as little as an option on a land purchase agreement?, and Why has the BRC been looking at San Jose? (Outside the A’s designated territory), if in fact the Giants clams can’t be breached.
    I realize MLB will play Oakland against San Jose, as long as they can, but Oakland is not holding back some tax revenues or another form of leverage, that MLB may use San Jose to get them to move off, so it could not simply be to get Oakland to do something, I wouldn’t think.

  84. TR is not a law ! It can be overturned by rich owners or the incompetent commish.

  85. ML, territorial rights are not subject to an absolute veto. As I said above, they can be changed with a 3/4 vote — since they are a specific covenant of the MLB Constitution they can be changed via an amendment to the Constitution.

    My point is that there is no precedent for such an amendment. While it is possible it remains a very high hurdle to overcome precisely because most owners don’t want to establish that kind of precedent.

    The territorial rights during the era of two separate major leagues were narrower than the rights within MLB, and those pre-MLB relocations and expansions did not involve taking any team’s existing operating territory rights away. Likewise, the limited t-rights of minor league teams were not violated when major league teams moved into their markets.

    • @Simon94022 – Thanks for not perpetuating the Giants’ veto myth. I think you’re getting the cart before the horse here. The vote, which Wolff wants, won’t be taken without approval of the deal by the Commissioner’s office. Should Wolff pay enough for the South Bay rights or it can be proven that Oakland is a dead end stadium-wise, that deal gets done and the vote is taken, precedent or not.

  86. @Lakeshore/Neil,

    Why did MLB allow the A’s to negotiate with SJ in the first place? Fair question. Given MLB’s track record, I suspect they want to keep as many options open as possible. More options means more leverage for MLB.

    It may also be the case that the Commissioner expected early on to be able to get either the Giants’ consent or a supermajority of owners willing to amend the territorial rights, but as the Giants dug in their heels that proved unworkable.

    In an alternative universe in which San Jose offered a DC-style fully paid up new ballpark, I have no doubt the Commissioner and other owners would have brought overwhelming pressure to bear on the Giants to make a deal. But in the universe we are actually in, SJ is not offering an especially enticing deal by MLB standards, so it doesn’t look like it will come to that.

  87. @Sid, you are raising a different issue about whether t-rights are or ought to be legally enforceable given the Federal antitrust laws.

    I was only talking about MLB’s internal decision making process. And within that process, the Giants t-rights are a very high hurdle to overcome. Not impossible to overcome, but also not a routine transaction like the Giants booting out the Seals from San Francisco in 1958.

    If San Jose can get the Ninth Circuit to strike down the antitrust exemption and that ruling is not overturned by the US Supreme Court, then sure the bar is drastically lowered for relocation. It’s a longshot, since the courts have to consider the issue in light of a century of judicial precedent. But we’ll see.

  88. @Simon94022: If T-rights were set in stone on this particular issue, then MLB would have forbidden the A’s to explore San Jose, enter into an option agreement, renew and extend the option agreement, and the Blue Ribbon Commission would have decided long ago there is no way to San Jose.

    You are correct: T-rights are a big, scary hurdle to overcome, which only explains the temporary delay in a ruling for moving the team to San Jose.

    MLB likes the idea of San Jose, sees $$$ in being in San Jose since team will be off revenue sharing and sees a local government willing to work with the team and league to streamline the process of getting the A’s here. If not, the league would have made such an easy PR release with a single word, “no.” And not, “no because you’re about to sue us, no” but “fuck off, no.”

    In addition, I feel you are confusing some things. Yes, in law – and you sound like a lawyer – precedent is key. Precedent trumps most other things like money or personal connections or even moral and religious issues in the legal world. However, this is not a law matter. It’s politics. And in politics money, not precedent rules the day.

    The bacon is in SJ, but there are a few more hurdles to overcome before MLB can add to their gold hoard.

  89. @Simon,

    Please provide me another example in MLB just like the gerrymandered Bay Area: where one teams territory was actually expanded for the sole purpose of relocating into said newly acquired region (Santa Clara County)? Hint: YOU CAN’T FIND ANOTHER EXAMPLE LIKE THE BAY AREA! Second, a precedent was actually set by EXPANDING (i.e. CHANGING) one teams territory for the betterment of the league (in this case allowing the Giants to relocate to San Jose). If MLB made Santa Clara County a shared territory (like the other two-team markets) for the purpose of allowing the A’s to relocate to San Jose, it would be no different than what happened in 1992 re the Giants territorial expansion. So in conjunction with the above examples I provided you re past geo/TV territorial changes, our very own Bay Area provides a case study on how territories can change. But go ahead and keep preaching your pro-Giants and “MLB doesn’t want to set a precedent” bull shit; the facts are against you Simon!

  90. @Simon94022 Thanks for the response, it certainly sound’s reasonable. I guess we’ll all see how this plays out.I would really like Oakland to get it’s act together, and get something done for the A’s, but at this point, San Jose, Fremont, I just want a new ballpark for the A’s somewhere in the San Francisco Bay Area.

  91. @Steven,

    Simon sounds like a lawyer?! Now that was funny! Simon’s been around here for awhile now; occasionally popping up to recite Giants and Oakland-only talking points/propaganda to fit his world view. In reality he sounds more like some traditional Bay Area media hack who feel keeping San Jose barred from obtaining MLB will somehow force the A’s to stay in Oakland. Even though his views are quite ridiculous they’re also pretty entertaining. After all, we’re going to need entertainment and humor to get us through this drama. So to the Simon’s of the world, keep them coming…

  92. BTW Steven, your comment at 654 was excellent. The truth and right on point my brother!

  93. @ Tony D. You make a really good point about 9 2 and the Giants expansion of territory

  94. Simon94022 must be a gnats fan. Many of them – for some reason – have a great deal of difficulty comprehending that the A’s will fund 100% of the cost for the San Jose A’s stadium.

  95. Did anyone else see Steve Moscowitz on yahoo sports talk tonight? Simply lived his candor about the A’s hopeless plight to move to San Jose and SJ’s silly lawsuits …”simply not going to happen.”

    • I didn’t, Steve M. I mean, Glenn D. Or Jeff McD. Or Sactodavey. You violated my rule about multiple aliases, so you get the boot. Later.

  96. @Steve M: the courts will decide the matter – not Tim Kawakami, Steve Moscowitz, Ratto, Matier & Ross, etc. This A’s fan believes the opinion of Joe Cotchett – the attorney representing San Jose – who has said that San Jose will have an MLB team, or a contract to get one in two years – carries much more weight than the opinions of the above mentioned b.s. spin artists who obviously are not experts at law or the MLB ATE, and aren’t qualified to form opinions about either subject.

  97. @ ML
    In thinking about some of your work, I believe you have indicated one of the main holdups with San Jose may be a negotiated amount for the payoff of the territorial rights (what I got out of your work), does Larry Baer’s statement of San Jose being “nonnegotiable”, change that at all?
    Do you think this is something he is just saying, for public consumption? Couldn’t MLB step in and negotiate a settlement, if the Giants just refuse to compromise?
    I realize we are all reading the tealeaves, and there may be times that you are as mystified as the rest of us, man I am just looking for a barometer.

    • @Lakeshore/Neil – Baer can say whatever he likes. T-rights can be transferred via negotiation or arbitration and are subject to vote by the owners.

  98. If a San Jose ballpark is hopeless because of MLB’s artificial restrictions and an Oakland ballpark is hopeless because of real, actual economic restrictions, where does that leave the A’s as far as getting new stadium? I guess these people are just waiting, waiting, waiting for another Wally Haas-type to emerge and be willing to lose money. Good luck with that.

  99. @Simon- MLB’s internal process is flat out messed up.

    Anyone can call for a vote in the lodge but the commissioner is the one by tradition who is supposed do it. If an owner calls for a vote it is frowned upon big time by the Commissioner and the other owners. Hence why Wolff will not do it.

    Steve Schott according to Larry Stone (SC Assessor) had 75%+ of the votes in 2004 but Selig got mad because Schott went out and “built the consensus” among the other owners as that is his job. he other owners are on the A’s side, but without Selig calling for a vote they will sit idle.

    Selig denied San Jose in 2004 because of this. Schott seeing he could never get to the South Bay with Selig as commissioner gave up and sold the team to Wolff. T

    Now Selig knows full well San Jose is the only way for the A’s but he has nothing to barter with between the teams.

    TV/Marketing have been shared for the entire region for years so that solution he used with Baltimore/Washington is moot.

    Since the A’s are building privately in San Jose he cannot ask them to pay off the Giants too. Not to mention the Giants won’t set a price and the BRC has yet to file a report in 5 years!

    This is the process the A’s and San Jose have to follow? SMH

  100. @Lakeshore/Neil, You make a good point by questioning whether the Giants are serving their best interests with continuing their hardball tactics. If MLB ultimately decides to approve the A’s move to San Jose, at that point there will be absolutely nothing the Giants could do about it. Any leverage for a fair and reasonable settlement to the Giants for giving up their so called “territorial rights” will be gone with their unyielding approach. If I were the Giants, I would be making every effort, at this very moment, to settle with the A’s on a reasonable compensation package before the decision will be made for them by MLB.

  101. @llpec,

    You know, been thinking about this one for awhile now and will now throw it out: perhaps there is real animosity between the A’s and Giants ownership group and this is the true hold up for a South Bay settlement. Think about it: as compensation for Santa Clara County becoming a shared territory, if the Giants were guaranteed a franchise value (ala Orioles) and revenues through the payoff of AT&T Park, there’s no reason whatsoever a sane business partner would turn that down. Especially with the team you share the market with relocating 35 miles away from you. In the spirit of the MLB “partnership,” the deal should happen no problem, no questions asked. Hard core Giants fans in the South Bay would remain Giants fans, while Peninsula/northwestern Silicon Valley corporate support would remain as well. A win, win all around for A’s, Giants and MLB.

    Yet at least publicly, the Giants are fighting the A’s quest to move to San Jose. My conclusion, again, is that bad blood exists between either Wolff, Baer or perhaps Fisher/Baer, other members of the G’s ownership group. Remember, Fisher is a SF resident who was once part of the Giants ownership group as well. Just thought I’d throw this out, because the delay and Giants opposition makes no sense whatsoever, especially if one considers MLB a true order of partnership.

  102. @ Tony D.
    Man there must really be something to your line of thinking, because San Jose just makes too much sense for the A’s and MLB. I realize it’s in the Giants best interest to keep the South Bay to them, but they would even benefit from having the A’s further away from them, they could also concentrate on making inroads to the A’s East Bay fan base.
    It’s a bit ironic that the most sought after and coveted portion of the Bay Area baseball market does not even have a team, San Jose because one team wanted to build their 20-25 years ago, and won’t allow the other team to build there today.
    I guess if the Giants were offered 1 billion for their TR’s it wouldn’t be enough, bottom line they just want the A’s out of the Bay Area.

  103. re: but they would even benefit from having the A’s further away from them,

    Lakeshore: The Giants are better off with a: the A’s stuck at the Coliseum or, better yet, b: Gone from the Bay Area. Since Selig is too terrified to do anything about this, the status quo remains. And that suits the Giants so fine…As far as the East Bay, the Giants already have a good portion of that sown up. A Giants store in Walnut Creek; rabid Giants fans throughout the A’s so-called territory. That job is already done for the Giants.

    re: bottom line they just want the A’s out of the Bay Area.

    …Bingo. The Giants know the enormous obstacles to the A’s getting a new stadium in their current territory – no sites, no public money available, private financing not doable. So why not pen them into their unworkable current territory for now.

  104. @ Pjk
    I agree with you 100%, I was just looking at the silver lining for the Giants, if they really wanted to be “Good Neighbors”, it would be all bad news if the lost San Jose to the A’s.

  105. Don’t forget: in 30 years when the Giants want to replace their stadium, they can pit San Jose against SF to see who gives them the best deal. Not doable if the A’s are already there. Look at the big, long-range picture.

  106. @ Pjk
    Yeah that’s a good point, it’s not like the Giants would threaten San Francisco, with Oakland.
    Come to think about it, I guess that would be the reason the Golden State (San Francisco), Warriors play in Oakland today.

  107. As others have mentioned, the Giants want the entire Bay Area to themselves. It’s the best fit motivation for all their actions and statements over the years.

  108. Baseball T rights need to be more revised along the lines of the TV rights that each club enjoys.

  109. Here’s another angle: theYankees/Mets, Cubs/ChiSox, and Dodgers/Angels share their markets with NO PROBLEMS WHATSOEVER. TV, radio, fans, corporate support, etc.: THEY ALL SHARE WITH NO PROBLEMS WHATSOEVER. You don’t see (say) Cubs ownership trying to force the ChiSox out of town, or the Dodgers trying to thwart the Angels quest for an improved or new ballpark. Would the Yankees had protested and cried if (say) the Mets had wanted to build a new yard in Brooklyn, further from the Bronx? Most likely not. The way Giants ownership is acting (again in public) towards the A’s is beyond outrageous; it’s sickening!

  110. What’s even more sickening is the local news media signing off on the Giants’ behavior because the A’s want to move to – gasp! – San Jose instead of hanging on and losing money building in Oakland. The East Bay and Frisco media DO NOT WANT San Jose getting Major League Baseball. Obviously…

  111. “Since Selig is too terrified to do anything about this, the status quo remains.”

    It’s obvious that Selig is beyond ridiculous in his fervent clinging to the selfish interests of the Giants, even when its obviously against the greater interests of MLB, and more specifically the interests of the Bay Area MLB market. This leads me to speculate that Selig personally may have some untold obligation to the Giants. What I’m thinking is that Selig may have given the Giants a verbal promise that MLB would give them territorial exclusivity to the lucrative South Bay. In return, the Giants agreed to privately fund their new ballpark at China Basin. At that time, Selig most certainly thought that his promise to the Giants was not controvertible. Selig likely believed that the A’s would eventually relocate to another market, or at worst move to a new ballpark within Oakland or the East Bay. My speculative scenario seems to be the only logical explanation for Selig’s steadfast adherence to the selfish wishes of the Giants.

  112. illpec: I think you’re right. Selig locked MLB out of one of the most lucrative places on the planet just to get the Giants to stay in the Bay Area. Now he’s got this pledge to the Giants while the A’s can’t get anything done in their current territory.

  113. @ IIpec/pjk

    I am so with you guys, right on the money. I believe Selig promised the Giants San Jose/SC, because MLB did not want to lose the name “San Francisco”, no offence to the Tapa Bay Area, but San Francisco is a world class city, and it’s no way MLB was going to lose a world class city.
    Selig as we all know thought Oakland was a “mistake”, in his words so he may have thought at the time, hopefully another market opens up.
    Then he brings his old buddy Lew Wolff aboard, gives him the green light after the troubles in Fremont, most likely hoping the Giants would not make that big of a deal about it.
    Hay Bud guess what, it came back to bite you in the ass the Giants are like “hell no”, do you do recall what you told us in order to get us to pay for our own park? (not like the Giants are going to help), at that point Bud is like is there anywhere I can put this team, I already used D.C. for that problem with the Expos, I already expanded to Colorado and Arizona, I think Portland and San Antonio are attest 10 years away, never mind the Mariners and both the Texas clubs are telling me behind closed doors, that they may have a problem with either of those places.
    Sh*t, I am stuck in Oakland the vary place I said was a mistake.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.