After a full day of deliberation and several trays of cookies, MLB’s owners finally approved MLB executive Rob Manfred as baseball’s next commissioner (NY Times/USA Today/LA Times/MLB/ESPN Sweetspot. Throughout the day, there were frequent reports that the vote was deadlocked at 22-8 or 21-9, 1 or 2 votes shy of the three-quarters of owners needed to approve Manfred. A late afternoon break preceded the final vote, which in true Bud Selig fashion, was tabulated at 30-0. Perhaps the so-called Reinsdorf block saw the writing on the wall and gave in knowing Red Sox co-owner Tom Werner didn’t have a chance, or they knew that Manfred, who has worked in the league offices for 15 years, was the more qualified candidate. Either way, in February Manfred stands to inherit a full plate of for now unresolved issues from Selig, who is now officially a lame duck.
Who was the swing vote that got Selig’s man, Manfred, over the top? It appears to have been Brewers owner Mark Attanasio,
Among the issues that need resolution sometime in the future:
- Nats-O’s (MASN) television rights negotiations/lawsuit
- The future of the Tampa Bay Rays
- Negotiating terms of an Oakland ballpark, if it can come to fruition
- The next collective bargaining agreement (current one expires after 2016 season)
- Blackout rules for local broadcasts
Jerry Reinsdorf wanted to go hardline against the players’ union, despite MLB having one of the most favorable, cost-controlled deals in sports. He considered Selig to be too conciliatory in his dealings with the union. It’s hard to say how much more Reinsdorf would’ve gained in the next labor talks, though the obvious goal would’ve been a salary cap of some sort. Reinsdorf was considered the power behind Selig’s throne, the senior whip who got the votes Selig needed. Here’s to hoping that sanity, not greed, wins out in the next labor talks.
During Selig’s tenure, he sought to consolidate power, getting rid of the league president roles and the deputy commissioner, opting instead for a more vertical org chart with subordinates’ autonomy reduced. One of the rumored challenges for the owners in the upcoming CBA/Constitution talks is how to curtail the powers of the commissioner’s office, which now includes disbursements of a discretionary fund that runs into eight figures (see Nats-O’s).
Going in, it was thought that the Larry Baer and the Giants supported Manfred, while Lew Wolff and the A’s supported Werner. Early voting seemed to bear this out. They even had some discussions early in the day.
Here’s something you don’t see everyday: #Athletics owner Lew Wolff talking with #SFGiants President Larry Baer, at #MLB owners meetings.
— Bob Nightengale (@BNightengale) August 14, 2014
The official approval of Manfred would appear to confirm the status quo going forward: Giants not budging on T-rights, A’s forced to make a deal in Oakland. The recently approved Coliseum lease extension further keeps the A’s in Oakland at least for the next several years. After that, well, who knows? MLB has seen enough of the stadium saga to know that neither city is a slam dunk, so contingency plans are needed. And it was Manfred who affirmed the threat to move “out of Oakland” last month, supposedly going so far as to mention San Jose in the same breath. So if anyone’s thinking that any city has an ally in the MLB commissioner moving forward, they shouldn’t. Manfred’s on baseball’s side, not yours.
newballpark.org 
Woo-hooo! Bye Oakland…
🙂
Baer is such an effin’ weasel – that guy makes me want to vomit.
I grew up in a primarily Giants and Yankees household (bring on the hate) and I agree that Larry Baer is a shitbag.
Unrelated to this post but still interesting. Warriors released the first concept image for the land they bought on 3rd street.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/warriors-arena-conceptual-plan-includes-2-office-towers-plazas-retail-space/Content?oid=2875026
Elmano insists the Warriors are staying in Oakland. Why is the Examiner even publishing this?
Definitely moving more slowly and quietly this time. But there doesn’t seem to be as much reason for anyone to disrupt this plan as most of the previous people who opposed the last SF arena plan wanted it placed roughly where they’re putting it at the Salesforce site.
there are certain things i’d like to see take place but i won’t post what i’d really want to see to happen to that rat face weasel with a perm.
Well back to the status quo… That was the only reason I kind of wanted Werner in as commish. Though at the same time Werner was just as likely to lead MLB into ruin on the whole with his hardline stance against the union and desire for a salary cap. Last thing MLB needs is another strike. Remembering the one 20 years ago on the anniversary last week drove that home. It took a steroid fueled homerun race to start to repair the damage MLB did to itself in 94.
Selig leaves office with the failure of the A’s stadium debacle on his resume right up there with steroids and the ’94 cancellation of the World Series. The guy simply was too much of a coward to do anything about the situation.
You’re assuming the average fan (or owner) actually cares about the the A’s stadium situation. Really. They don’t. If you were to make a list of things that he did that fans didn’t like, the A’s situation wouldn’t be anywhere near the top if it were even mentioned at all.
Yep. The A’s, who aren’t the most-popular team in a single Zip Code in the US if Facebook is to be believed, simply are allowed to rot. They are not enough of a priority for MLB.
Yeah your right, I don’t think the average baseball fan knows about the A’s situation, for that matter the average person living in the Bay Area know, vary little to nothing about it.
Having talked to folks about it in various cities around the country, I can say not many I have spoken to even know and those who do, don’t really know. Half the time they don’t even know where Oakland is, other than vaguely in California or Northern California. They do know where San Jose is, mostly because I work for a technology company and I am in other cities that other technology people are there for (conferences, business meetings, etc.). They certainly don’t know any of the nuance, care about territorial rights/SF Giants, know who Lew Wolff is, or get why the hold up. Most think it has to do with failing ballot measures to finance a stadium. It’s like the go to quote is either “Good for them, make them pay for it themself” or “They (Oakland) are just going to have to pony up some cash.” It’s such a bizzare and niche thing, this whole 20 year A’s stadium hunt thing.
Jeffrey hit the nail on the head, niche, niche, and niche.
This is such a niche subject, that many in and fans of baseball don’t really know about it, even if they have some vague idea. I never have been one to trust major media outlets much, I find them to left, to right, or run so much by corporate interest, that they rarely get the story right, and when they get it right, they don’t get the entire (full).
After following this story (as most of you, here have), for so long, I have absolutely no trust that the media in general, is going to get anything correct, past the usually glossed over, repeated talking points, of whatever subject they are reporting on
The good thing about most of us here is we have all been following this for so long, that even when we don’t agree, we are usually dealing with someone, who has a knowledge base about the situation, we are like a secret club or something (ML’s nights of a new ballpark), because no one, and I mean no one cares about this crap like us.
Most people in San Jose don’t know about the territorial rights thing. That’s how the Giants are able to get away with this because there is little outrage in San Jose. An occasional Sharks fan who threatens to cancel his $11,000 season tickets if the Giants host the outdoor Sharks game, but that’s about it. And me, of course. FWIW, I think I saw a letter to the editor the other day (kind of glanced at it) criticizing San Jose for “spending money” on the MLB lawsuit, even though San Jose is paying nothing. Ronald Reagan said a lot of what people believe just aint so.
The sad truth – even San Jose city officials are partially guilty. They should have booted out the San Jose Giants when the lease was up(allowing the SJ giants to stay even after that franchise was suing the city of San Jose with the bogus Stand for San Jose lawsuit?)
On the positive, a new A’s ballpark at the Coli site is a good move. Also, staying in Oakland does as much harm to the giants franchise as if the A’s were to move to SJ.
I actually think it’s the opposite @JeffreyAugust. I think Oakland is more known outside California than San Jose. From my experience, when someone is from San Jose they usually have to follow it up with 1 hour South of San Francisco. I think the only ones familiar with San Jose at its location are people in the tech industry. The only characteristic that San Jose has of a big major city is the population. The place looks and feels like a suburb, I can’t tell any difference from Cambell, Cupertino, Santa Clara or other surrounding cities.
In instances where Oakland is more known than San Jose by people outside of California, it’s usually for reasons that reflect very badly on Oakland.
No, the Raiders and A’s bring a lot of name recognition to Oakland nationwide and beyond. But do they bring in a lot of money? Well, no. People just hop the BART or hop on 880, go to the games and leave. If Wolff can get a ballpark village, so to speak, done in the Coliseum parking lot, then some nice revenues might actually come in to the city. Right now, pro sports teams in Oakland mean spending taxpayer money on cops, on maintenance, on construction debt. Pro sports is a cost center in Oakland. “Moneyball” brought name recognition to Oakland. How much did it do for Oakland’s economy? Very very little if anything.
True, it doesn’t have the squeaky clean image that San Jose has but neither does Detroit, St. Louis, Chicago and others cities that are great sports towns despite crime rate. Nothing against San Jose, its a nice city to raise a family but it lacks identity, I just don’t see it as a sports town.
San Jose feels like a suburb but so do a lot of other cities with professional sports teams. Look at a place like Phoenix.
For folks that have never been to the area, it’s more about name recognition than the name of the city.
Even though the sports teams don’t carry the city name, people recognize names like Auburn Hills, Arlington and Foxboro because of sports. Santa Clara will likely become much more well known because of Levi’s.
This is why San Jose wants the A’s. They are a major city in terms of population and have an identifiable industry but a lot of people don’t know it exists. The lack of a major sports team (hockey is a bit niche and soccer is definitely niche) has a big impact on this.
This is also why Oakland wants to keep the A’s and the Raiders. If it wasn’t for the A’s and the Raiders, how many people outside of the area would know that Oakland exists.
Very true. I think for the reasons you mentioned Oakland needs its teams more than San Jose. Oakland with out sports will just be another Compton. San Jose with out the A’s will still be a great city despite recognition.
@ JM
I would say (if you’re going with southern comparison), Long Beach is probably more accurate then Compton.
@JM
I would have to agree with you (the outside of the tech industry, portion of your statement); I actually interact with a client base which is entirely outside the state, I also make my home outside of the state (western United States), almost no one knows acatly where San Jose is. Unfortunately often thinking it’s in Southern California? (We, Americans are so geographically challenged), more people definitely know where Oakland is, more unfortunately they San Jose however, is that they more often Oakland in a negative light, so yes people know about Oakland (more than San Jose generally speaking), but not for the best of reasons.
The one year the Warriors played in San Jose, I think there was an NBA star who thought the place was “near LA.”
@JM
Not that there are not a good amount of people, that have a positive view of Oakland. People often ask me about its colorful history (black panthers, hells angels), blue color/working class reputation, or I will get the Ricky Henderson, Clint Eastwood, Tom Hanks, I have even gotten a Bill Russell comment, that one really surprised me, hell I even got a too-short once, and the “There is no there, there”, but unfortunately Oakland has a bad image, some of it may not be fair, but the O-town would not have such a reputation, if a lot of it was not well deserved.
I hear the same thing from people who are talking about Oakland. “I live in Oakland, about 10 minutes from SF.” Or as I usually describe it, “I live in Pleasanton, about 45 minutes from San Francisco, 25 minutes to either Oakland or San Jose.” That’s because San Francisco is a “World CLass City” and Oakland and SJ are not.
There are three reasons anyone knows where Oakland or SJ are in my experience (and I am not trying to be a dick but this experience is considerable, I have spent as many as 3 out of 4 weeks on the road in cities all across America for much of the past 4 years AND I always talk about the A’s no matter where I am)- 1. They have heard of the sports teams (A’s, Raiders and Sharks)- these people don’t generally know where the cities are in relation to one another or San Francisco, 2. They have heard something about the crime rate (this is more Oakland than SJ, justified or not), 3. They know the airport (in this case, they ALWAYS know how close Oakland is to SF, not so much on the SJ side because they fly into SJ because it is closer to where they are trying to get, not because it is close to SF).
This phenomena gets worse the further away from the West Coast that you get. I had to explain that Oakland was closer to San Francisco than Sacramento was to San Francisco to a guy in Chicago, once, as an example. And this was at a White Sox game, so he absolutely knew who the Oakland A’s were.
It’s certainly true that outside of California, more people know where San Francisco is than either Oakland or San Jose.
Unfortunately for Oakland and San Jose, they both seem to suffer, from an inferiority complex when it comes to San Francisco. It’s called the SanFrancisco Bay Area, for a reason.
Yep. San Francisco is the major city and rightfully so.
When the A’s moved here from KC, they legitimately could have called themselves the San Francisco A’s instead of the Oakland A’s. If they had, the whole situation would likely be different.
@ slacker
It’s funny you say that, I always thought the Warriors should have just kept SF in their name, when they moved across the bridge.
The Bay Area is really weird that way (divided), it was and still is the only NBA team in the Bay Area, they could have just continued to carry the name of the whole region, plus Oakland is only 10 minutes away (6-7 if you get on the freeway in west Oakland), even Oakland would have been OK in the name, but the stupid “Golden State” moniker simply to pacify the east bay, when the team represents the whole region? As a long time east bay resident, it would have stung a little, but I think I would have had more respect for the organization, if they would have kept SF, o simply used Oakland.
When the A’s were going to build in Fremont there was a lot of speculation on what the name would be, I was thinking at the time it might have been the Silicon Valley Athletics at Fremont (which I know a lot of people would not have liked) I think Wolff said at the time it would be “at Fremont” in the name, anyway I thought that’s reasonable it’s in Fremont, which of course is not San Francisco, Oakland, or San Jose, so not a big enough city to have the team named after it, and although SV. is not a geographical location, the name is definitely synonymous with the Bay Area, plus many people consider Fremont to be the northeast side of the valley, so as crazy as it may sound I would have felt a lot better about that name, then the punk ass “Golden State”, but I guess I won’t have to be concerned about that much longer, as it will be the San Francisco Warriors, again real soon.
I never liked the Golden State name either. It’s like calling the Knicks the Big Apple Knicks. I can see the A’s and Raiders representing Oakland because SF has the Giants and Niners but since Warriors are the only team in the Bay Area they should just stick with SF, and that’s coming from an East Bay guy. I never considered them an Oakland team and don’t mind them moving to SF. In fact, I think it makes more sense.
If the 49ers can use San Francisco but play in Santa Clara and the Angels can use LA but play in Anaheim then I don’t see why Warriors can’t use SF being a bridge away. Heck, I think the Sharks and Earthquakes should use San Francisco instead just like the Niners. I think it would be better marketing and recognition which is why the Angels chose to go with LA over Anaheim.
I believe Oakland-Alameda County wrote into the Warriors’ lease (and maybe the leases for the other teams too) that the franchise name can not include “San Francisco”.
A big part of why the Warriors are moving across the bay is the opportunity to improve their brand.
@ simon94022
I didn’t know that (or think it as a possibility), thanks, if it is true that was smart on Oakland’s part, to try to create name recognition a part from San Francisco, I guess it backfired, I’m sure the Warriors were going for something natural, but I think they just came off looking dumb, in the case you describe, I think they just should have gone with Oakland. I also agree with you, a big part of the Warriors move is to improve their brand, I guess my original point was they didn’t help it in the first place by going with “Golden State”.
I didn’t know that about the lease either.
When the Warriors “moved” to Oakland they also didn’t completely move to Oakland. They also played a few games in San Diego which may have also led to the Golden State name.
@ Slacker
Wow. San Diego I didn’t know that. As the old saying goes ” you learn something new every day”.
There is some logic in holding onto the San Jose name in team names being that it is the region’s biggest city even if it’s not the most famous. Oakland on the other hand is neither the largest nor the most famous.
@ SMG
I don’t think Brooklyn is either, and Oakland has plenty of history, individuality to pull it off, but I do agree with you in that San Jose, is certainly far enough away from San Francisco (and large enough), to have that distinction.
The team based outside S.F. proper that got the place name best is the roller derby team– the Bay Bombers.
Even so, the San Jose vs MLB case is far from over. Evidently there are many media types, and many comments at this blog, that assume that SJ lost – actually that is far from being accurate. At the NFL vs American Needle Supreme Court case, for example, The 7th Court of Appeals in favor of the NFL. After the case was taken to the SCOTUS – they reversed the 7th Court of Appeals judgment by a 9-0 vote – they are not evidently swayed by the Court of Appeals panels of judges actions or comments.
Comments by Baer, MLB, the local media, and comments or actions by Federal Judge Whyte, or the judges of the 9th Circuit Court may have little or no influence on how the the Supreme Court would make its determination if it takes the SJ vs MLB case.
@ duffer
I hope it does have a better chance then I expect, especially if Wolff fills he ultimately can’t get anything done in Oakland.
The Giants owners are so predictable – now that there is a good chance that Wolff will build at the Coli site – the Giants are switching from the anti A’s -to-San Jose spin to now the bay area is a one MLB team market only nonsense – so typical of that organization.
Oakland has always had more name recognition than San Jose for no other reason than the fact that it is located right across the bay from San Francisco. What has made San Jose less associated with San Francisco is the fact that forty plus miles of somewhat angular land mass separates the two cities, as opposed to a body of water connected by a bridge or ferry. The fact that San Jose is now the largest city in the Bay Area hasn’t really added to its association with San Francisco, either.
@IIpec
Exactly…
@Lakeshore/Neil, Based upon the geography of the Bay Area, MLB’s current division of the Bay Area market is incorrect and a farce. In reality, both San Francisco and Oakland should be within its own territory while the South Bay from Santa Clara County should be included as a distinct separate territory. Unfortunately, this two territory nonsense is propagated by the Giants in order to retain its territory with the greater population and wealth(individual and corporate) instead of what it should be which would be geographically based. It’s no wonder why recent surveys have shown that there are more Giants fans from the East Bay than A’s fans.
@llpec – it’s more Giants managment b.s. Most MLB fans are typically willing to travel 30 miles or less for MLB games. 10% or fewer of fans who attend Giants games are likely from Santa Clara County. Also, someone commented earlier that only 20% of the giants corporate sponsors are from Santa Clara county – that sounds accurate. Despite what the giants owners spin – their revenue from Santa Clara county fans and corporate sponsors isn’t significant.
@IIpec
I agree with you, in spite of the situation however I believe the Oakland/East Bay market can be much better then it has been. I do sympathize with Wolff and I hope the A’s can obtain San Jose, especially if it means they would leave the Bay Area otherwise, but on the other hand Wolff knew what he was getting into and I believe if done correctly an Oakland ballpark will do fine economically (12-15 revenue generating team), perhaps not as well as San Jose (10-13 revenue generating team), but certainly will enough to succeed.
I realize some who comment here would not exactly agree with me, and given some of your past comments, I would guess you may see it a little differently then myself, and that’s cool, I appreciate various point of views, as long as they are respectful, which I have always found you to be.
Lakeshore/Neil, Thanks for your kind words. Our differences are very little. While, as you know, I’m in the pro San Jose camp, I would have no problem if the A’s can work out a new ballpark plan at the Coliseum site. In your case, you would much prefer for the A’s to remain at the Coliseum site in a new ballpark, but unlike the Oakland-only crowd, you would not object to the A’s moving to San Jose. We both agree that the bottom line is for the A’s to remain permanently within the Bay Area. The Oakland-only crowd is stupidly foolish on that issue. Another extremely important issue that we totally agree on is if the A’s ultimately can work out a plan to build their own ballpark at the Coliseum site, MLB must allow the A’s to remain on revenue sharing. For the A’s to self-fund a new ballpark at a site with less financial potential than San Jose, they would have to be compensated for the unequal division of the Bay Area market with the Giants. The Giants cannot have it both ways, and MLB must consider the fact that the A’s got the short end to the splitting of the Bay Area market with the Giants. Even with development rights to the Coliseum site, Wolff would not risk putting 100% private funding to the project unless he can continue on receiving revenue sharing. MLB should be made aware that the A’s were denied to build their new ballpark at a site in San Jose with significantly more profit potential.
@IIpec
I would say, we’re right on they money, concerning our ever so slight differences. Your right I support an Oakland solution (certainly would be happy with a San Jose solution), but it’s not without mixed emotions, because I am hoping for a solution (in Oakland), that doesn’t put the team I love, in a position of maximum financial strength, which of course San Jose would do that. I guess it’s the emotional side of me, but it should provide a wonderful silver lining, if the A’s move to San Jose, knowing that it would be the best thing for the team, from a financial standpoint. I always appreciate you Input.
We live in the San Francisco Bay Area, not the Oakland or San Jose bay. We always will. That said, I’ve had a couple of amusing encounters with Oaklanders when I’ve met them out of the state. I asked one where he lived and he said “Montclair” and another said “Rockridge.” It was like they thought I didn’t know where that was. In both cases I politely said, “oh, you mean Oakland right?” and they both looked sheepishly at me. As I learned, this was not the best conversation starter! 🙂
I talk to people almost every day, that ask me where I am from, since I live in a part of the country where over 50% of the population is from someone else, it’s a subject that often comes up. My standard answer, which I proudly say is “The San Francisco Bay Area, specifically Oakland. California”, the conversation can go any number of ways after that.
Somewhere else.
I was hoping for a Werner miracle but Selig’s crony Manfred got elected so expect the status quo going forward.
Manfred is nothing but a henchman and the wrong guy for this role. I see why Reinsdorf/Moreno wanted someone else. All Manfred will do is call Selig for advice, essentially allowing Selig to keep a “hand” in the game without doing all the work.
Manfred will do zero regarding the A’s situation like Selig did. He will sit on it and pray for an Oakland miracle which ironically could happen if the Raiders leave as Mark Davis is threatening.
MLB is the worst run of all the sports, no parity between small and big market teams, no salary cap to help parity, and greedy owners.
Only thing going for MLB is besides the A’s and Rays they are in all the right markets, the A’s and Rays are just in the wrong parts of their market, the Rays should be Tampa and the A’s in SJ.
MLB passing up all that Silicon Valley money simply at the behest of the Giants, while maintaining illogical territories that have San Jose lumped in with Frisco 40+ miles away, proves Sid’s point about how badly MLB is run. Even newcomer MLS has been able to get a new stadium done for the Quakes but MLB can’t when it comes to the A’s. We’re probably looking at another 3 years before a determination is even made on whether a ballpark is feasible at the Coliseum site – and that’s only if all the pieces fall into place: Raiders leave, Wolff gets Coliseum site, etc. Oakland, 11 miles away from Frisco, is a different territory from Frisco but San Jose, 40+ miles away, is the same territory? Huh?
Also the fact that the giants likely average no more than 3K fans from Santa Clara county per game., and no more than 20% of their corporate support is from Santa Clara co. also. The Giants are more likely attempting to squeeze the A’s out of state – their fan support and corporate revenue from San Jose is not that much.
@ duffer
Yeah, I think most people would agree with you, and we have talked about it at nauseam (like eve thing ells related to this), the San Francisco Giants would like nothing better, then to squeeze the A’s out of the Bay Area.
@pjk
Actually I am not so sure; it’s just at the behest of the San Francisco Giants. (although its primarily them of course), I really wonder if there isn’t any pressure coming from some of the bigger markets; LA, and New York, thearadicaly could support three teams each, Boston and Philadelphia could both probable support a second team, perhaps even the Dallas metropolitan area.
That’s potentially seven other teams (eight including the Giants), that may be concerned about territory rights, there could be even more than that.
I know geographically, and logically it doesn’t make sense, but I wonder if the other owners care about that. I think they may be taking the simplest view of all, which is “Hay, I wouldn’t want another team encroaching on my territory, now or in the future”, they may fill as though, they would rather the A’s take from the revenue sharing pot (remember in San Jose, they would have the added burden of paying off the Giants), then open up the can of warms, that is territory rights.
I know, I know (before you bring it up), every other two team MLB market, is a shared territory, but when the Giants got assurances from the A’s about the South Bay, it changed all that (for better or worse), it may not be about fairness, for some owners, when hear the word “territory”, alarm bells may go off, and that’s enough for them. I am not defending it, so you don’t have to give me all the reasons it’s not right, I am sure I already agree with you, I am just saying until the Giants are comfortable with it, that may be all some other teams need to be a little unconfutable themselves.
Don’t know for sure but I would think the Giants might be more concerned with loosing the Southern part of the Peninsula/San Mateo County fan base than Santa Clara. The peninsula would still be expected to belong to the Giants but people from towns like Mountain View, Palo Alto, Redwood City etc might become A’s fans, if not at first after a while.
It’s already been clear that the Giants place the best interest of the Giants ahead of the best interests of baseball. The best interests of baseball would have the two Bay Area teams in the two largest, most-prosperous cites, 45 miles apart, and not one in the second-largest city, another in the struggling third-largest city 11 miles away and none in the largest city 45 miles away. The Giants seek to preserve the order of the Bay Area as it was 50 years ago, and they are getting away with it.
@ JM
I agree with your last point, I think that may be part of it for the Giants as well.
Traffic is horrific from those cities Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Redwood City into Downtown San Jose.
In fact, it is so bad it would take 1+ hours in traffic on either 280 or 101 to get to a game.
The Giants overstate their grip on the South Bay. I have taken the bullet train from Diridon for a Dodger game and it was empty. People did not start getting on the train until the Peninsula.
Though this is not over for the pro-Sj crowd. This is an interesting thread of opinions, especially the one where the gentleman said if it wasn’t for the Raiders and A’s Oakland would be another Compton…wonder what he was really trying to say? @Lakeshore/Neil, you are right the comparison should have been Long Beach, not Compton seeing both cities origins are based on transportation hubs. I have said all along that a lot of this A’s to SJ support is mostly driven on the notion of superiority , how can that city deserve to be the only one in Cali with 3 sport teams. How can that ghetto of a city deserve to be in the spot light? Not when we got this shinny new city over here! We are much better than that hell hole with those people. This goes to the heart of the debate, admit it or not we Oaklander’s know where a lot of this is coming from. So yes foolishly or not as one of the pro SJ people stated; I would rather them move from the BA, then to relocate to Sj. Why would such inferior people want to be reminded of our lost treasure and inferiority on a day to day basis to our brethren down the street because we were not shinny enough, despite supporting them for over 40yrs. What a slap in the face! I want one of you SJ supporters to feel the shame it would be if your wife left you and moved across the street married to your brother? Sports teams are about pride and passion, the economics are just the gravy to the fans! So what sense would it give us? We wouldn’t share in any of the economics if they moved to SJ, there would definitely be no more pride or passion…only humiliation.
Whatever one of you said that SJ doesn’t need the A’s as much as Oakland does is what I had said in my previous rant. You guys don’t need them as much! I bet most of you have the belief that the rich are getting too rich for the sake of being rich. Oakland has many problems particularly where the Coliseum is located. If these teams leave, the area doesn’t have a chance for at least 2 generations. SJ will be alright, you have all that techy, gadgety stuff that the world can’t live without. Oakland needs a catalyst to change, this development could be that push…I know a lot of you have heard it before. Anit no helping them people…but as I said before -25 years ago SJ was nothing but orchards and a way to LA! Let’s give Oakland it’s push, it will be those sports teams to do it a lot faster (if at all) then any other gadget you smart wonderful, well rounded; thoughtful; enlighten SJ fans can come up with for Compton..err Oakland.
Hi Troy. Great post. I was the one that mentioned Oakland without its teams would be another Compton. What I meant is another city that gets a bad rep with crime rate where the only attention it gets is negative. Cities like Richmond, Compton. I guess Long Beach is a better comparison but that’s not the point. For example, I love the attention the A’s have been getting this year, especially since sport analyst usually refer to the teams by the city: “Oakland is in first place, “Oakland made a push for the World Series”, Oakland beat so and so etc. If it wasn’t for the that, most of the news regarding Oakland would be negative (like the other cities mentioned). Tha’ ts one of the reasons I also the one that stated Oakland needs its teams (in this case A’s) more than SJ.
If we where talking about which team should get an expansion team Oakland or SJ it would be different as far as which city deserves them. But the hell with the population or income and other reasons SJ might be better. Oakland A’s should stay in Oakland because its home and they have made history in Oakland. Teams should not be treated like if its a Baskin Robin Franchise. Once teams establish in a city they are more than a business or a team, they become an integral part of our peoples lives and culture. Imagine the NY without the Yankees, or Dallas without the Cowboys.The A’s don’t belong in SJ the same as the Red Sox don’t belong in SJ. The A’s belong in Oakland and despite what others think they can thrive in Oakland. Yes it has its crime rate but so does NY, LA, Chicago.
I would like to know where the outrage was regarding the Warriors moving to San Francisco. I didn’t hear barely a peep from the Oakland-only crowd. Even the Oakland business community such as Clorox and and those with political clout such as Mr. Boxer were either silent or supportive of the Warriors move from Oakland to San Francisco. Also, I didn’t hear much or any opposition to the 49ers move to Santa Clara. So much for ones civic pride!
That’s because the Warriors are not an Oakland team, they are a Bay Area team that happen to play in Oakland. The San Francisco 49ers are still the San Francisco 49ers that just play in Santa Clara every other Sunday during football season.
Then let the A’s move to San Jose and be called the “Oakland Athletics of San Jose”. While this moniker will not change the territorial claims of the Giants, it should be reluctantly acceptable to the Oakland-only crowd.
Spare me. The Warriors are abandoning Oakland and refused to take Oakland’s name for the 40+ years they’ve been there. This is a San Jose thing, obviously. No outrage over the Warriors moving to Frisco after getting $100 million in facilities improvements from Oakland/Alameda County in the late-90s; lots of outrage over the A’s looking at San Jose even though the A’s have received nothing but a wrecked stadium in 1995. And sorry, the 49ers are a South Bay team now. Except for the 5% of their season ticketholders who live in Frisco and the farce of the team name.
While Oakland may not have always been treated fairly by their team’s (not uncommon for the majority of, American city’s that host major professional sports franchise’s), the A’s have continually been treated poorly by its host city, often taking a back seat to the Raiders, who have used Oakland’s resources, left once and is threatening to do it again (outside the Bay Area, I might add).
Then we have the Warriors, who refuse to even talk to Oakland about building a new facility, hove gone so far as to let the city know, a whopping five years in advance that we will not consider you and we are building a new facility in San Francisco, as if that was not bad enough they are planning on leaving and not providing their schedule payments, that are designed to help paying the outstanding debt, they created by updating the arena, shocking making the Raiders almost look good.
Oakland needs to make the one team, that has not done nearly as much willful damage to the city, the priority once and for all.
Pro-Oakland people have this double standard and it’s terrible. Warriors are leaving period.
Spare me the only team in the bay argument. The Raiders are threatening to leave as well for a 2nd time! Does anyone vilify Mark Davis who refuses to raise capital in Oakland and wants a handout?
Here is Lew Wolff, stuck in mud because of an anticompetitive agreement by the Giants/MLB. Wolff isn’t asking for a handout.
In fact he is willing to stay in Oakland but wants the entire coliseum lot to develop. He will pay for his own park and village.
But what does Oakland do? Spit in his face in favor of the raiders. It’s terrible and Oaklsnd deserves to lose all 3 teams because of their unfair behavior.
In the end, if the Raiders leave the A’s stay…..the irony.
The SJ – Oak – SF naming arguments are all about civic pride for the residents of the affected cities, and branding for the teams.
San Franciscans weren’t too outraged by the 49ers going to Santa Clara because the name did not change. And from a branding perspective the NFL would never want it to change.
One of the reasons the A’s wanted to go to San Jose was the opportunity to relaunch a troubled brand in the same Bay Area market but with a new identity: the San Jose Athletics.
Adding “San Jose” to the MLB standings (validating it as a “major league city”) is also why city officials and Silicon Valley execs pledged support for the move. And conversely the elimination of “Oakland” is what angered East Bay fans. Nobody cares about the disappearance of “Golden State”.
People in all parts of the Bay Area, and everywhere else really, have the same motivations on this issue, which is usually more important than proximity to the ballpark. So there is no need to single out and demonize either “Oakland-only” or San Jose people.
I agree all this has to do with civic pride.i don’t think it would be an issue if the A’s moved to Dublin and kept the Oakland name.
I think adding “San Jose” benefits San Jose more than the A’s and its never-ending quest to be recognized as a real major city. I don’t think it does much for the A’s as far as marketing and branding. Is not like they are moving to New York City, or even back to Philadelphia. Without checking the census or household income San Jose looks more like a city fitted for a Triple A team. Most of us on here agreed that it is relatively unknown outside California.
@ simon94022
I agree with you for the most part, but I think JM has a good point, when he says San Jose would be befitting, much more then the A’s if they moved there.
@ JM and Lakeshore,
Definitely agree that changing the name to “San Jose A’s” benefits mainly San Jose rather than the A’s. That’s really what this is all about for the Mayor, Cisco marketing execs, etc. The supposed economic stimulus created by sports teams is almost entirely bogus. It’s all about the psychology of having your home town recognized as “major league.”
So if they were going to remain the Oakland A’s but with their ballpark in San Jose, there would be no reason for SJ to get too excited about it. Likewise, few East Bay fans would care much, aside from the minority who attend games in person on a regular basis.
But I think there is a potential benefit to the A’s in rebranding the team. It’s a chance to shake up the market, add new fans in the South Bay and Peninsula, and maybe start to escape the secondary status they’ve had in the Bay Area over the last 45 years.
I think that’s also the main reason the Giants want to keep them in Oakland.
@ simon94022
Last statement, well put. I agree 100%
@ Sid
I am a Pro-Oakland person, and I agree with almost everything you said.