MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred made a few comments about the A’s and the Coliseum. The comments are in the 2nd item of Susan Slusser’s daily spring training update from Monday night.
In addition to confirming that the Coliseum is the best site for the A’s (as opposed to Howard Terminal, which was not mentioned), he also spoke out about the Raiders’ and the NFL’s role in the Coliseum drama.
‘I think that there is a lot of activity that could clarify the situation, and I’m not going to go beyond that, that I think could create an opportunity to move things along in Oakland. I think the A’s are willing to explore Oakland if they can find a workable arrangement and it’s always been our preference to keep clubs where they are.’
My immediate reaction was to read into his quote a little:
Slusser agreed with my assertion, as did Howard Bryant. Ray Ratto cautioned against reading too much into Manfred’s quotes, as he’s just starting his gig and lacks to power base to make any major decisions. But that’s kind of the point of the Raiders-leave-and-A’s-take-control scenario, in that MLB doesn’t have to make a decision. They effectively back into a solution for the A’s without having to do anything. They wouldn’t even have to take a vote. Follow the Twitter thread and it becomes a fun little discussion about this ballpark business, including replies from John Shea, Wendy Thurm, and the LA Times’ Bill Shaikin.
While it’s pretty good reading, no one should get any ideas that the A’s are about to get the keys from dad. There’s a long way to go until that happens, and the A’s housemates will have something to say about it before long.
newballpark.org 
Sounds like everyone has the impression that the Raiders are as good as gone.
Yeah well the silence is deafening from them. And realistically latching on to either of the more proactive teams plans in LA seems to be the Raiders best bet for playing in a stadium where they’re not necessarily a second class tenant like they’d be in Santa Clara.
They have no money to speak of. This whole Carson plan is just the Raiders latched on to what the Chargers have already done themselves. There’s no incentive for either the Rams or Chargers to really treat the Raiders as potential equal partners because they simply don’t bring the same level of capital to the table. So realistically, if they end up sharing a stadium, they’re going to be a second class tenant.
mentioned it in the previous thread but dolich was on csnba’s ystl monday and said he believes the coliseum park project could be what the a’s envisioned what the fremont plan would be with a ballpark village surrounding the ballpark.
also mentioned it as a 200 acre site and not the bigger plans that have been mentioned so it looks as he think the smallest plan out of the three listed is the most realistic project.
Time to go, Raiders. Time to kill the pipe dream of new football and baseball stadiums at the Coliseum site, Oakland.
LOL at all the Raider haters already kicking them out the door. This thing is far from over, but nothing like a good quote to get you guys going with postmortems. BTW, Manfred’s all over the place re the A’s and Oakland: from “no comment” when asked if the new yard will be in Oakland to “tacitly approving” a Coli yard…love it! Dolich? As much credence as M&R! 200 acres? So “just” 80 private acres left to acquire for the A’s (LOL). Damn this saga has become sickening; looking forward to (hopefully) brighter days and more SJ news in the future…
Preference to keep clubs where they are? Even if said municipality hasn’t given a rats a$$ about the franchise for decades and is poor as hell re corporate support/disposable income? Come on Manfred! Grow a pair (unlike Selig) and work to get the A’s where they belong!
Tony, you could make a good argument that’s exactly what he’s doing. Teams tend to belong where they are, not where you’d like them to be. And I say that as an ardent supporter of the idea that they’d do better in San Jose and it makes more sense business wise for them to be in SJ.
Then why would you say they “tend to belong where they are”? The best place for a franchise in the 1960s is not necessarily the best place for a franchise in 2015. Especially when that franchise must compete with another stronger franchise only ten miles away.
If the A’s want to “control” the Coliseum City site, then the A’s need to make a commitment to Oakland and tell everyone how they would develop any of the portions of the Specific Plan. No one is or has been keeping them from coming forth with a separate plan. At least they could go as far as the Raiders and state their preference is to stay in Oakland!
While it is silly to think the Coliseum City site cannot accommodate the Raiders and the A’s, if a condition of the A’s staying is the Raiders must leave, let the A’s put that proposal on the table so the “electeds” can make a decision.
The A’s fans need to get the A’s to clearly state their “wants and needs” to stay in Oakland instead of playing the man behind the curtain in the land of Oz. Let’s all stop speculating and deal with the facts that we know.
I have been clear on behalf of New City. If either the A’s or the Raiders make a commitment to develop a new stadium or ballpark and develop Coliseum City, that is accepted to the “electeds”, I am happy to step aside.
Until that happens, our objectives are to work with the City and County to keep both teams, develop the transportation hub and Parcel A, AA in the Specific Plan. Those objectives are what is best for Oakland and the region.
Floyd: Don’t the A’s have to look at the numbers first? And how are the A’s supposed to have any chance whatsoever of making their project work if it also has to shoehorn in a gigantic football stadium and the parking that would need? What kind of “commitment” has Oakland made to the A’s except to ruin their stadium and bash the owners?
Floyd – If you see a train wreck coming, isn’t the best first action to simply get out of the way?
Aww, c’mon RM – where’s the fun in a train wreck if you aren’t smack-dab in the middle of it?
Floyd – How magnanimous of you to offer to step aside if the elected officials determine that New City isn’t the right choice. Of course you say this in the same post were you call anyone silly for disagreeing with your company’s stance on Coliseum City and where you attack your primary competition for the site.
Have you ever thought about running for office?
When are the a’s or raiders going to present their plans?
@Adrian – The framework and timeframe for the A’s & Raiders to present have not been approved yet. Need County’s involvement.
Well, from Floyd’s comment its obvious the Raiders aren’t committed to anything. I want to build a stadium in Oakland too. Isn’t it incumbent on Floyd to show 3 things and show they work. Two stadiums, one without either raiders or A’s. Surely that’s the first thing you would do. The numbers either work, or they don’t for each scenario. Even if each team doesn’t like the plan, you think you would present it.
It’s a reasonable assumption that the A’s strategy (Wolff), is to allow the Raiders to present their plan first (whatever that is), see if Davis and New City (other developer) can actually pull off a new football stadium, if they can’t Wolff will get the land to develop his baseball only ballpark.
This strategy is a calculated one on Wolff’s (MLB) part, if the Raiders can’t make it happen or it seems to be easier to partner with the Chargers in LA, MLB will not have to take a vote on San Jose, and Wolff can drop his fight with the San Francisco Giants.
If the Raiders do make it happen, this seems to be Davis’s preference then Wolff will have a greater augment for San Jose (theoretically), which we know is his preference. If MLB still isn’t willing to give him San Jose and SJ is not successful in court, he could still decide to join Davis and Work something out at the coliseum area. I know, I know, it’s not his preference, “he will not do it”, “it won’t pencil out”, believe me I know.
But with Wolff taking this strategy, at some point he will either.
A. Get the coliseum property to develop.
B. Raiders succeed and he uses this to bolster his case for San Jose. (Assuming San Jose Law suite fails)
C. Join Raiders in development of CC. area, finding other revenue sources to make it “pencil out”.
D. Sale the A’s to out of town interest at a fat profit.
It appears Wolff is effectively FORCING a choice on the city and county, in hopes that the Raiders actions or inactions will create more options for him. I’m not mad at him it’s wise on his part, but if (when) this strategy backfires and the Raiders do actually build a new stadium, and if at that time MLB still doesn’t grant the A’s San Jose (JS suite fails), I really hope you guys don’t come with this “Oakland chose the Raiders” crap, when the A’s are playing in Montreal, Portland, or wherever.
While it’s certainly true that Oakland has chosen the Raiders and Warriors time and again over the A’s in the past, and may not even deserve the opportunity to host the team now or in the future, this strategy by Wolff is also at least in part jeopardizing the A’s future in the Bay Area, I hope that’s also part of the P.S. on the A’s Bay Area elegy, if it come to that.
On the contrary, Wolff isn’t forcing anything at all. He’s stepping back and letting the process work. He can do this because he has the 10-year lease and the escape clause if the Raiders build at the Coliseum. If the Raiders build he has justification for San Jose, which works against both Oakland AND MLB at once. That’s strategy.
Besides, if the City/County were to “choose” the A’s now over the Raiders, what exactly would they be choosing? What criteria would they be using? By not presenting anything now, Wolff is allowing them to work through the process. That’s the opposite of forcing a decision.
@ML
Ok, ML. Wolff is not forcing an Oakland choice, but by using the strategy of waiting and allowing the process to play out; but he is not actively giving Oakland much of a choice.
The choice is go with the Raiders plan (if there is one), or chose to negotiate with Wolff and see if we can come up with a plan.
Like I said I’m not mad at Wolff for trying to create more lavage for himself, against Oakland and MLB. (SF Giants) All I’m saying is l keep hearing “Oakland must chose”, as if there is a real choice in front of them, it’s somewhat clear that its within Wolff’s strategy that Oakland “chose”. Wolff is creating the allusion that there is a real choice, when in fact the choice (such as it is), may be.
A. Go with the Raiders plan to build a new football stadium.
B. Go with the A’s plan, which is a promise by Wolff that he will try. (If he fills well that day)
If this is true and of course I don’t know, but for all the times that Oakland should have chosen the A’s when they had the chance, they clearly should not “chose” the A’s in this case unless the A’s make an actually commitment beyond, I will “really” think about it. The A’s should only be a backup plan for Oakland, if it doesn’t workout with the Raiders. After all that’s Wolff’s strategy, right?
Wolff is making Oakland’s “choice” easy by making it a non-choice.
Oakland’s choice, the great Wolff non-choice.
@Neil
You’re implying that the Raiders actually have a plan. All they have is words. At least we know the A’s hired an architect. That’s something concrete, even if it’s small). As far as we know, the Raiders have done precisely nothing to formulate an actual plan.
@ SMG
You’re absolutely correct, that’s why I said (if they have a plan), when referring to the Raiders. I don’t know, and Davis may only be using Oakland to bolster his case with the NFL. It bothers me when so many claim Oakland has this choice in front of them, as if its an even handed choice. At this point it appears Oakland’s only real choice is to see if Davis is going to chose Oakland, if he doesn’t Wolff may choose Oakland. Oakland in all truth gets to choose whomever chooses them, as a matter of fact Oakland may end up not being able to chose between the Raiders and A’s, because like the Warriors they both may chose somewhere else to play.
It’s a bit of a misnomer that Oakland has a real choice, and it wouldn’t be so iterating if the people that read and comment here, weren’t some of the most informed and knowledgeable people on the subject.
@Lakeshore – Oakland isn’t offering (nor should they) to finance the stadium. They have a choice, but because they’re asking one or both of the teams to commit significant funding there’s no guarantee Oakland’s choice will happen.
This isn’t Wolf’s fault or Davis’ fault. If Oakland was offering financing than they would have a true choice.
A lack of true leverage is what is causing the waiting. The Raiders can move anywhere, but Davis doesn’t have the funds or ability to make this happen on his own. The A’s could build in San Jose tomorrow, but MLB is blocking them.
This lack of leverage is creating a stalemate. All parties, Oakland included, are to blame. Wolf isn’t forcing Oakland’s hand here.
@Slacker
I could not agree with you more, there are so many people at fault here (including, and perhaps especially Oakland); I would not know where to begin. I guess like many I’m just frustrated. I don’t think Wolff is forcing Oakland’s hand, so much as I believe he is not providing an even handed “choice”, as I have already stated. That’s his strategy and that’s ok, but let’s call it what it is.
An attempt to make it look like a fair and reasonable choice, between two plans. (Provided the Raiders have one), that actually is a stalling tactic by Wolff to gain time.
A. to see if San Jose vs MLB goes his way.
B. Davis builds, so Wolff says to MLB I tried giving me San Jose.
C. If Davis doesn’t pull it off; he will have the coliseum land to himself. (or explaining to MLB why he can’t get it done with Raiders gone.)
There is always choice in everything we do, no matter how big or little the choice is. If someone says “give me your money, or I will take your life”, there is a choice in that situation a person has to make (sorry for the extreme example), I don’t mean to imply that Wolff’s strategy is that extreme, but I do get a little tired when I hear and see people saying things like “Oakland is playing the victim” (which they do at times), or that Oakland has a “choice” to make” which implies that’s it’s a reasonable choice.
When in my eyes Wolff and Davis seem to be playing a pretty good victim (at times), and as limited as Wolff and Davis’s choices may be, they both seem to have more and better ones then Oakland does. Oh well, such is life for an American city that plays the sports franchise game, I guess…I should have stopped rooting a long time ago.
@Lakeshore – Look on the bright side. It does mean a few more years of cheap A’s tickets 🙂
It’s doubtful the A’s will commit to Oakland before the SC decides to hear the San Jose vs MLB lawsuit. If the SC agrees to hear the case – it’s probable that MLB will approve the A’s move to SJ before the SC hears and makes a verdict on the case.
@Slacker
You sure are correct about that, my friend.
@duffer
Yes, I’m sure you’re right. The whole thing is just frustrating.
Dear pjk
Would you bet your paycheck that the A’s will get the coliseum land over the Raiders??? If not please shush…go Giants Go Raiders it’s our bay area not the A’s.
If A’s care about Oakland there is plenty of room to make a temporary or full ballpark on the coliseum land away from the Raiders to revamp the Coliseum for themselves
You have no evidence to support that. So take some of your own advice and shush.
Smg when have you ever had evidence to support your stupid statements over the years….sorry I should not stoop down to your level. Shush
I don’t claim things as fact when I have nothing to back it up. If a dual stadium setup makes financial and logistical sense at the Coliseum, then show us the god damn money and evidence. When we have years and years of financing and planning fall through time and time again, the reasonable conclusion to be drawn from that is that it won’t work.
So again, provide some evidence or spare us of your idiocy.
Louis: Tell us how the A’s get a new ballpark built, privately, on that site if they also have to make room for a gigantic football stadium and parking for that – property that could otherwise be used for the residential and business development needed to subsidize the A’s new ballpark. The Raiders already have a new stadium in the Bay Area – it’s called Levi’s Stadium. They already know they are welcome to share it with the 49ers. There is simply no need for a second $1 billion+ NFL stadium 30 miles from the other.
Just remember folks…anyone can say anything; have lost count how many statements have been made by “people-in-the-know” and here we are in 2015 with no solution in sight…I mean there isn’t even a solid timetable for events to take place.
Article in the WSJ with an interview with Lary Baer. I encourage everyone to read it……and ask the question:
How much would an A’s move to San Jose REALLY affect the Giants’ business interests in San Francisco and the Bay Area? After reading the article, it seems to me the Giants are all about greed and can’t really envision their finances being heavily impacted by the “second” MLB team in the Bay Area…no matter where they play.
Thanks to Wendy Thurm for putting this article on her Twitter feed.
Marine Layer-Not sure if you have seen this article. Interested to know everyone’s thoughts.
Article Link.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/baseball-champions-ceo-on-creating-a-culture-of-success-1424664608
It really doesn’t say much (or anything) vis-a-vis the territorial situation. The business elements of the interview were really just related to the Giants’ internal business. And from that perspective they are objectively very successful. The problem is not and never has been the Giants business success, but rather their approach (with MLB as a coconspirator so to speak) to the territorial issue in the Bay Area, which is a separate concept altogether. Anyone who say they wouldn’t want the A’s to also be making a ton of money and running a successful long-term marketing strategy is lying to themselves.
For whatever reason people have trouble separating the emotional and ‘physical’ issues involved in this saga.
@SMG: I just wonder if there was/is bad blood between Fisher and Frisco group after Fisher decided to buy the A’s. Fisher with others like Shorentein saved Frisco from moving to that awful trop dome in FL. I am sure Frisco is too greedy and they want the A’s out of the BA but there must be something else going on behind the closed doors.
@daniel – While I definitely wouldn’t rule out bad blood between the two ownership groups, I do think there’s just a simple element of greed in the way the Giants operate.
Just look at how the Giants tried to block the Warriors initial move to SF unless it directly profited the Giants by building on their land.
what have i said before, the guy is a rat and looks like one too!
all i hear when i see him is a lot of squeaking.
He really does have a shit-eating grin, doesn’t he?
Somehow, not meeting Manfred or Baer, and not knowing them other than their video clips – Manfred and Baer appear to be polar opposite personalty types. Manfred, a straight shooter – who will not tolerate too much b.s. – Baer, not so much (the guy gets perms). The A’s to SJ is not out of the question. MLB questions the Giants fear that they will loose 800,000 fans if the A’s move to San Jose. Also, Manfred would possibly wish that the A’s would commit to Oakland before the SC decides to hear the SJ vs MLB ATE case.
FYI all: Tim Kawakami is the biggest piece of $hit on the face of the planet!! Amazing he has time to throw SJ under the bus, being that he’s constantly blowing the Giants and SF. And he writes for the SJ Merc?!! It’s also amazing how the Raiders/Chargers Carson “development” and Manfred’s quotes (totally taken out of context by some) can completely warp the narrative…
Kawakami is Giants PR, a supposed San Jose sports columnists scolding San Jose for trying to get an MLB team.
I don’t even read his stuff. It’s clickbait.
In addition to being Worlds Champions, the Giants are champions at hiding behind a smoke screen and allowing the Bay Area media to do the bidding for them in their all out effort to block the A’s from moving to San Jose. The San Jose Mercury News, as the city home newspaper, should be totally embarrassed by the most recent Kim Kawakami column. .
@IIpec
You are so correct, it’s like the Bay Area media would rather the A’s leave the area then to hurt the Giants even in the little way they would be hurt (if at all), by the A’s being in San Jose.
The Giants organization,along with many of its fans – would make a fascinating sociology topic – Mass neurosis and delusion on a huge scale. The giants form and fund a false “Stand for San Jose” group to oppose the A’s moving to San Jose – and also believe that the Giants will lose 800,000 fans to the A’s if the A’s move 40 miles away from SF. No professional sports team has likely has never made such bizzare moves – and so many people don’t believe that is odd, and that the Giants organizations’ paranoid behavior is acceptable
You guys are losing it. Whether you hate kawakami or not, all he wrote is pretty much the current state of affairs. I don’t see alot to complain about in the article. The only thing I disagree with him on is that the city screwed up by suing. They had nothing to lose in my opinion. Also, if you think media scrutiny would force the giants to give up san jose, your delusional. Purdy cheers for SJ all the time, and it means nothing. This is all an entertainment saga for us, that will only be solved by billionaires, not by some columnist. Enjoy the ride, our opinions don’t mean one bit in this quest.
@jordan
“Our opinions don’t mean one bit” Truer words have never been spoken.
Current state of affairs? Well, not really. TK made the Raiders/Chargers Carson “development” out to be a done deal and completely took Manfred’s comments re A’s at the Coli completely out of context, as if the commish was stating that MLB “wants” the A’s to build in Oakland and that’s it. Where was TK’s commentary when Manfred stated “no comment” when asked if the ballpark would be built in Oakland? Comment on Manfred’s meeting with former SJ mayor Reed? Current state of affairs?: no, just TK having free reign to be an asshole…
What about Manfred’s comments makes you think he doesn’t want them to stay in Oakland?
ratto and kawakami on ystl a few minutes ago.
summary?
kawakami thinks whatever the next bit ball to drop in this whole scenario with la will be the final card played and that will in return start turning the wheels for a decision to be made with all the teams, both mlb and nfl, in terms of their future with their current cities. where they’re at now is not at the starting line but in the last 30 meters of a 100 meter race so kawakami thinks currently this process is further along than many think they are at.
regarding oakland in particular. both kawakami and ratto believe that emotionally the raiders have more of a following then the a’s in the city of oakland, called the a’s fan base more “suburban” but taking that out and whats the better team to keep for a business sense, it’s clearly the a’s due to the 81+ home dates a mlb season presents and the dozen at the very most nfl games if you include pre/post season games that would be played at an nfl venue in a calendar year.
also both said sj is dead and that it was dead a year ago specifically when sj sued mlb but if the raiders move that’s essentially what mlb wants as the final piece in getting the a’s a new park in oakland. did mention the a’s would have all the leverage with the city of oakland once the w’s and raiders move within the next half dozen years.
@ both are looking out for their next paychecks. Fatso Rat is already on KNBR and is getting paid by Frisco. TK knows SJ Merc will die soon so his next job will be with Comcast BA which is owned by Frisco. TK blocked me everytime I reminded him that he has not kissed Jed York’s boots yet. Get extremely angry. Fatso Rat same reaction when I remind him that he is feeding his family by being a shill for Frisco. Fatso blocked me too.
Ratto is a complete bozo – he commented that MLB would win the SJ vs MLB lawsuit because “MLB has more money” – brilliant analysis – completely wrong too. For example, with the NFL vs American Needle case, the SCOTUS ruled by a 9-0 margin, against the NFL (overturning the 7th Court of Appeals decision which judged in favor on the NFL) The NFL definitely “has more money” than American Needle and still lost the SC case by a 9-0 vote. Also TK is a Giants shill -along with Wendy Thurm.
Wanting the SC to take the case and them actually taking the case are different issues. The overwhelming consensus on all sides and from 3rd parties is that the SC staking the case is not impossible but is extremely unlikely. And the experts and scholars talking about the outdated nature of the ATE are not simultaneously predicting that the SC will take the case. Those are also separate issues, or rather an example of my first sentence.
@SMG – The SC’s chances of hearing the case may not be that great – however they are likely much better than the 2% figure that some so-called experts believe – a wise person would not predict what they will do.
Duffer and SMG,
Read the latest on what Stanford law experts have to say about SJ’s case and the anti-trust exemption. Very encouraging to say the least. I now have some newfound respect for THE FARM..
Both Fat F**k Ratto and TK said San Jose is “dead.” PROVES THEY DON’T KNOW SHIT!
We may all disagree on where the A’s/Raiders future lies, but at least we all agree that TK and RR are a bunch of @&$%#! idiots.
Wolff is smarter than you think.
I get his logic and it makes sense and here is why:
-Oakland has made their bed with the raiders and have to lie in it until the bitter end.
-By sitting back in the background he can gain leverage on either MLB, oakland or the Giants.
-Wolff wants the coli site to himself, no raiders, no warriors, just him all by himself
1 of these 3 scenarios occur and all work in his favor
1. Raiders succeed, tear down the current coli and build new forcing the A’s to share with the Giants indefinitely thus giving Wolff leverage on the Giants for a SJ move. In fact, he could sit on their heads, increase his payroll big time with all the premium seating he lacks now….SF A’s anyone?
2. SCOTUS grants cert to SJ and now SJ/Wolff have leverage on MLB all day to settle without needing the Giants permission. This is the least likely as I think this is simply a “hedge bet” wolff may as well play out.
3. Raiders fail, move from oakland leaving Wolff all alone with Oakland on their knees with only 1 team left. This is what Wolff wants, why compete now when he can sit back and gain leverage on oakland by letting things play out?
In all 3 scenarios Wolff wins, he maybe losing now but eventually he gets his wish.
Either a new ballpark in SJ/Oak or he sits on the Giants heads at beautiful ATT Park until they scream uncle….a WS title as the SF A’s would speed up the process.
Wolff ideally wants scenario 3 to play out since he can easily finance the ballpark with the development on a much larger scale than fremont.
He wins in all 3 scenarios…..now time will tell which one pans out.
I support Tim Kawakami and R.Ratto…if you notice on the Coliseum property it’s best for the A’s to build there ballpark closer to airbart off hegenberger. The Raiders can keep the coliseum and reconstruct it. I love at&t,pnc,Wrigley and yankee stadium..if the A’s want to join the “beautiful ballpark” club…he needs to work/compromise with Lobby Schaff and Mark Davis
Are you out do 8th Grade yet?
Um Sid?…….
If Wolff/Fisher bros. are so smart….why does Larry Baer have 3 trophies in his office and Wolff still doesn’t have his desired sight or a damn world series?……. STOP!!!!
May I ask why you’re hanging out in an A’s ballpark chat room when you’re not an A’s fan? is it to agitate the A’s fans here, perhaps? Would you like me to find you some Giants fan chat rooms that would be more appropriate for you?
pjk,
Give the guy a break; he can’t even spell Oakland’s Mayor’s name right…
Louis
Unless you’re Lew Wolff’s optometrist I don’t see how commenting on his sight is relevant.
ATT Park is overrated – also who cares about the scenic views it offers. There are plenty of spots to get spectacular views of the bay at no charge – not the $100 + cost to attend a giants game. Judging by what Wolff has done at Hohokam – the A’s new ballpark will a gem (way better than ATT Park)
@Louis- The game is about leverage, in business without you have nothing. Especially in this situation.
Wolff has none, but he knows by waiting this out he will gain it on either MLB, Oakland or the Giants. He just needs one of them based on the scenarios playing out above.
Larry Baer? MLB economics is you “spend big to win big” and ML has done several articles on this.
Giants beat KC because they have a big payroll full of veterans while KC did not….Bumgarner already was a 2-time champ before his amazing run in October.
Big market teams rule while small market teams drool….Ask KC.
As a NRAF, I have no stakes in this. The obnoxious tug of war between the Oakland Onlies and the Pro SJ supporters bore me at best.
But it is hilariously ironic to see the whining hysterics from the Pro SJ side now, when they’ve stood upon their pedestal judging the Oakland Onlies for being irrational and emotional for the longest time.
That’s because you are looking at Tony D. as the example of Pro-SJ people when in reality he is more of an outlier, like Nav, but on the opposite end of the spectrum.
@all
Condo harder….
What does that even mean?
@Joe: Well, what has Oakland done for the A’s? Oakland destroyed a good looking baseball park for what? and still today, Oakland is hanging on to the raiders and breathtlessly waiting for Mark Davis to do something. The raiders ain’t gonna do anything because they believe Oakland will again build a new stadium for them. Say what you want about the York family, they raised the money and did all the heavy work while Davis is sitting on his fat ass.
You’d be “whining” to if your city was banned from acquiring MLB!! (especially since those rights were put in place for the Giants to move to SJ themselves; now they’re using them to keep the A’s out?). And BTW, I’ve never judged someone who wants the A’s to remain in Oakland as “irrational” or “emotional.” I’ve just judged those who HAVE BEEN irrational and emotional over the years (no matter where they are on the ledger). Any questions?
@ Tony D.
That’s right. I’m with you my man.
Well no, because while I enjoy the city I live in, I don’t have a strange pathological need to attach my own self worth with my city’s.
“And BTW, I’ve never judged someone who wants the A’s to remain in Oakland as “irrational” or “emotional.” I’ve just judged those who HAVE BEEN irrational and emotional over the years (no matter where they are on the ledger).”
Clearly.
Continue to froth away, sir. I’m hoping we could get an Elmano appearance here cause then this would turn into a real party.
I agree with Tony. MLB has unfairly banned San Jose from pursuing a team and maintains the city as a colony of Frisco. MLB deserved to get sued by San Jose and San Jose had nothing to lose by filing. But the goal is a new ballpark in the Bay Area. We have to hope the A’s and Oakland can get it done. If not, then it’s time to open up San Jose.
Attach my own self worth to my city? Now you’re clearly frothing out of your a$$ Joe! My life (family, job, upcoming FAT retirement) is AWESOME thank you very much! Look, you personally don’t care that SJ is banned from obtaining MLB, that’s your prerogative. I feel differently and there’s nothing wrong with that. Any further questions?
True story
Wolff needs leverage on someone and right now he has none. His strategy is wait and let the chips fall and he can then pounce on the party who is going to be in bad position.
In the next 2-3 years, between Oakland, MLB and the Giants, one will be on their knees with Wolff ready to take full advantage.
He cannot compete right now, Oakland is in bed with the Raiders, MLB refuses to do the right thing and the Giants simply don’t care.
Eventually this will change in some fashion.
The A’s will have a new ballpark in the Bay Area in the next 5-7 years.
I am sorry it is not sooner as I think this is horrible and the A’s should have been in San Jose years ago, but it is what it is.
Did anyone see Glenn Dickey’s article re:the Raiders and Carson?
Lost among the drivel was the absurd claim:
“Of course, he wouldn’t be sharing the Coliseum, either, if Wolff had accepted the offer of Oakland business leaders to pay for a new park in the Jack London Square area.”
LMAO! There was NEVER any kind of a concrete offer to pay for a JLS stadium, just a lot of talk from the likes of Don Knauss.
And Tony, please, step away from the ledge. The fact that most here think of you as San Jose’s version of Nav/Elmano should tell you something, namely that you have lost perspective.
Nope. There was never any offer put forward to pay for a ballpark there. Just to study, study, study, with so-called “interested buyers” in LA, never named, who were supposedly ready to buy the team. All a bunch of junk.
Dickey (like Shea, Kawakami, Ratto, etc.) loves to distort/twist reality (i.e. LIE), so no surprise he would state such garbage about HT. Again, the Carson “news” and Manfred’s quotes have been taken so out of context by the local media that it’s simply pathetic; makes you wonder what the heck they’re teaching in college re journalism.
Not near the edge plrraz, but am personally upset by the latest “news.” Again, that’s my right and nothing wrong with that IMO. Life is great!!
The ultimate goal is keep the A’s in the BA. Oakland, SJ , Fremont, any city.. it does not matter.
@ daniel
I’m with you Oakland, San Jose, Fremont, anywhere in the Bay Area. As much as I would like the A’s to be in Oakland, I’m totally cool with San Jose, especially if it means the Raiders will stay in Oakland. I must admit however, if the Raiders actually do get something done at the coliseum I will get a little nervous, because I’m not sure the A’s will get San Jose and may have to leave the region. I really hope both can stay, but we will find out in time.
@ Tony D.
I’m so not trying to get personal or flippant. I’ve noticed you’ve said repeatedly on the last few threads that it is a “fact” that the East Bay is “poor” in terms of corporate support and disposable income. You also mentioned your own personal “fat” retirement coming up.
I would never compare the East Bay corporate situation to the Silicon Valley because there is no comparison. What I am curious about is the disposable income quote.
I grew up in the East Bay and I do know that there are big pockets of poverty, especially in certain parts of Oakland and Richmond in particular. I also know that there is also a large amount of disposable income in many, and even most parts of the East Bay.
I don’t want to get into a huge debate on which region is “richer,” but I am interested in your source for claiming that the East Bay is poor in disposable income. I’m kind of in-the-dark as to demographics in the Silicon Valley as I am not a big fan of Wikipedia for many reasons. I do know that your area is highly skewed in tech jobs, which pay really well, so I am not arguing that SV has high to very high income. I am just curious about the quote that the East Bay is “poor” generally speaking. Compared to what? The California median, the national median, etc.?
Thanks.
@ Tony D.
Sorry, I forgot to mention that I know a great many people from the East Bay who commute to your area for work. Hence, those salaries earned there are brought back to the East Bay and spent.
I don’t know the exact #’s but I do think it’s a good-sized % of East Bay folks who commute to SV and earn pretty good $.
This thread has devolved into garbage. Closing.