Why Aren’t We Talking About The San Jose A’s?

The Oakland Athletics have pined for a move to San Jose for some time. Bud Selig and Major League Baseball recently have put the issue onto the front burner, yet no resolution seems to be within reach at this point in the negotiations.

This potential move to San Jose is not simply another example of a professional sports franchise strong-arming the league and the public sector into building a new stadium. Instead, the potential move is about money. The organization desperately wishes to leave Oakland because the profitability of the area has waned. In fact, the Athletics reportedly lost money last season, despite healthy revenue sharing checks.

From Bud Selig’s point of view, allowing the Athletics to move their franchise to San Jose makes perfect sense. It will generate more revenue for the league as a whole by transitioning the Athletics from a small-market team that was financially dependent upon the revenue sharing to a large-market team that contributes money into that revenue sharing program.

The Athletics need 75% of the owners’ votes, however, and it can be inferred that the Athletics do not have the necessary 75% vote to move to San Jose. Otherwise, the move would have already happened or have already been announced.

It is no secret as to why the San Francisco Giants are against the move. Instead of fully controlling the counties of San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Monterey, and Marin while the Athletics only controlled the counties of Alameda and Contra Costa, the potential move to San Jose would likely cause the two franchises to jointly control the entire physical territory. In fact, the Giants and Athletics are the only two-team market that does not share the exact same territorial boundaries, so any potential shift in location would obviously result in a massive loss of revenue for the Giants.

Other baseball franchises would not be dealt a direct financial loss as a result of the proposed move. It would, however, set further precedence for moves that would encroach on other territories. For example, if the Athletics move to San Jose and infringe upon the Giants’ territory, what would stop the Tampa Bay Rays from uprooting their franchise and moving to Indianapolis and snatching up physical territory from the Chicago Cubs and Cincinnati Reds? Or from moving to Portland and stealing the Seattle Mariners’ second-largest market? Or from moving to New Jersey and beginning to wedge their way into the New York markets?

This is about more than just the Athletics moving from Oakland to San Jose. Teams across Major League Baseball are ensuring that their territorial rights are protected and that small-market teams cannot point to this move in the future as precedent for moving into another team’s market. That is why the Athletics have not been able to obtain the 75% vote they need to approve the move.

So what happens to the Athletics?

The city of Oakland has come forward with the concept of Coliseum City, which is a plan for new, privately-funded home for the Oakland Athletics, the Oakland Raiders, and Golden State Warriors. This proposition does not fix the underlying problem for the Athletics, however, as their territorial boundaries are not expanded and serious doubts exist as to whether the team would be able to privately fund a new stadium at all.

In my mind, one of two scenarios will come to pass over the next couple of seasons:

(1) Major League Baseball will approve the move to San Jose.

(2) Owner Lew Wolff will sell the franchise, although the location of the franchise after the potential sale would still remain up in the air.

Again, this is not another example of a professional franchise strong-arming the league and the city to get what it desires in terms of a new home. This is about financial health for the Athletics. Something needs to change for the franchise, though what exactly that is remains unclear.



Print This Post



J.P. Breen is a graduate student at the University of Chicago. For analysis on the Brewers and fantasy baseball, you can follow him on Twitter (@JP_Breen).


Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Baltar
Guest
Baltar
4 years 6 months ago

I hope the A’s sue the MLB, win and move to SJ. Also, I hope then the Rays will make any of the moves you suggested.

Yirmiyahu
Member
4 years 6 months ago

On what basis would the A’s sue MLB?

Domenic
Guest
4 years 6 months ago

Major League Baseball’s antitrust exemption can be challenged, and unfair competition may be broached – and both the A’s and the San Jose government would have such options.

Richard Gadsden
Guest
Richard Gadsden
4 years 6 months ago

Presumably that the territorial boundaries are an illegal cartel – be interesting for an MLB club to challenge the anti-trust exemption.

Diesel
Guest
Diesel
4 years 6 months ago

I wish Wolff would be the one to take up the challenge of going plaintiff against the anti-trust exemption, but that’s an absolute last resort and he’s much more likely to sell the team before taking on Selig and Co. The A’s have been completely dependent on revenue sharing and dips into the discretionary pool, and those would be cut off immediately, which would mean he would have to foot massive legal bills AND run huge losses with the team in the short term. Cabals don’t exist for this long without significant protection set up against challenges. There’s a better chance of the A’s contracting (with the league buying out Wolff) than them taking on the anti-trust exemption, and that’s a sad reality.

RS
Guest
RS
4 years 6 months ago

Astros fan here: Bud Selig plays favorites and does whatever he wants. The owners do not disobey him. He won’t let the A’s screw with the Giants. He despises Lew Wolff for breaking the code of silence because that’s Bud Selig. You defy him or speak ill of him – you get the horns.

This. Issue. Is. Dead. The A’s can move out the Bay Area to maybe Portland – (the Mariners claim on that territory is tenuous at best), or they could dare to try a move to San Antonio – but I think Nolan would put Selig in a headlock and Jim Crane – well, Crane won’t do anything at all unfortunately. But I don’t see Texas teams allowing it.

But more likely, the A’s get sold AND stay put. Nothing to see fo the next few years on this front.

jim
Guest
jim
4 years 6 months ago

they’d almost certainly have to change their name if they moved, though. (tampa, not oakland) indianapolis rays doesn’t really work…

Franco
Guest
Franco
4 years 6 months ago

LA Lakers? Utah Jazz? Stupider names do exist.

Jacob
Guest
Jacob
4 years 6 months ago

They can’t sue. Individual teams cannot sue MLB, it would break their anti-trust agreement as they would essentially be suing themselves. It is the COUNTIES that have the standing here.

Jason
Guest
Jason
4 years 6 months ago

If they did sue, they would lose. What harm have the owners of the A’s suffered? None. Wolf knew his territorial rights when he purchased the team…. and presumably that influenced the 175M purchase price.

Conversely the Giants owners bought the rights to San Jose when they purchased the team… so a loss of San Jose would be a legal “taking” from the Giants ownership group and would entitle them to relief.

TK
Guest
TK
4 years 6 months ago

All moves by all teams are about money.

Yirmiyahu
Member
4 years 6 months ago

“This potential move to San Jose is not simply another example of a professional sports franchise strong-arming the league and the public sector into building a new stadium. Instead, the potential move is about money.”

So, instead of being about a franchise wanting money, it’s about a franchise wanting money.

byron
Member
byron
4 years 6 months ago

Can there be a difference between wanting enough money for a team to be viable and wanting money to line your pockets? I’m pretty sure there can be. Is your own employment not different from a billionaire demanding hundreds of millions of dollars from a city to not move a team? Yet both are about a person wanting money.

AK7007
Member
AK7007
4 years 6 months ago

Byron gets it. I think that Richard Branson said it best when he said that a company should be better off being profitable while doing good, instead of being very profitable while doing evil. The A’s aren’t trying to be dicks, they just want to be competitive. And this is coming from a lifelong Giants fan.

BX
Guest
BX
4 years 6 months ago

But they’re not trying to get taxpayer money, unlike most of MLB. Which is a good thing.

Matt
Guest
Matt
4 years 6 months ago

The A’s aren’t trying to be dicks, but Lew sure is. It’s Major League, with Rachel Phelps played by Lew Wolff, except we don’t get to listen to Bob Uecker,

TK
Guest
TK
4 years 6 months ago

I find it odd that the team that is trying to uproot and leave its current community fanbase behind gets to wear the white hat.

Johnny Come Lately
Guest
Johnny Come Lately
4 years 6 months ago

They’re not uprooting and leaving their current fanbase. The move is like 25 miles South. Any A’s fan that lives in Oakland can still get to the game, by public transit too, as soon as they finish extending BART into San Jose.

Steve the Pirate
Guest
Steve the Pirate
4 years 6 months ago

I know that this sucks for the established teams in the big markets, but more of this needs to happen. There was a study several years back to find the best locations for new MLB franchises. The top 3 were NYC, NYC, and North NJ. This would obviously infringe on the Yanks and Mets, but would allow a small market team to boost revenue and potentially become more competetive. MLB is lacking parity and the biggest reason is revenue. If MLB wants to grow as a league, it has to open up the biggest markets to more evenly distribute revenue among the franchises. That is unless the only teams you care about are the Yanks and Sox.

Mike Savino
Guest
Mike Savino
4 years 6 months ago

I don’t want parity.

MikeD
Guest
MikeD
4 years 6 months ago

Baseball has just as much on-field parity as the NFL and more than the other “major” sports.

NY already has two teams, one in each league. It would make more sense for MLB to expand back into the Boston area, adding an NL franchise again.

CS Yankee
Guest
CS Yankee
4 years 6 months ago

Or, New York could add another NL team…this would give them one in each league.

Nats Fan
Member
Nats Fan
4 years 6 months ago

The best location for a new franchise is Newark, NJ.

Tim_the_Beaver
Member
Tim_the_Beaver
4 years 6 months ago

A decent summary of the current state of affairs.

I hope he doesn’t mind the publicity, but blogger Marine Layer has the only other site besides Fangraphs I (as a dismayed A’s fan) read daily at newballpark.org
ML has run the blog for 7 years yesterday and has the most insightful and unbiased news on the topic- for which local media sadly cannot be depended on. He has done numerous interviews with key people (lew wolff, most importantly), and I’ve learned a ton about the politics of MLB and stadium building by reading him.

That blog and Fangraphs are what keep my fandom going, despite the A’s depressing outlook. Thank you to the writers of both

scatterbrian
Guest
scatterbrian
4 years 6 months ago

Holy crap, 7 years?! Sad day when the A’s stadium issue makes you feel old.

Nats Fan
Member
Nats Fan
4 years 6 months ago

if that makes you feel old, your not old!!

Jack
Guest
Jack
4 years 6 months ago

What the A’s need is to leave the Bay Area probably. At no point since they moved there have both teams been able to pull in large crowds simultaneously. Even in the early 2000’s, when they A’s were great, they sat around 20th in attendance. A move to San Jose or a new stadium in Oakland won’t solve the problem. Of the two team metro areas (New York, Chicago, LA, Washington-Baltimore and SFBA) the bay area is the smallest, over a million less people than the next smallest. A’s would be best off moving off to Sacramento (a large and uncontested city) or even out of state to Nashville or Charlotte.

Chris
Guest
Chris
4 years 6 months ago

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think that Sacramento has the surrounding population to sustain a MLB franchise. In fact, if I’m reading the statistics right, Sacramento metro area is under half of the population of the SF bay area (2.4 million in Sacramento area, vs over 7 million for the SF Bay area), meaning it would be more profitable for the A’s to move to San Jose by a wide margin.

Jack
Guest
Jack
4 years 6 months ago

Sacramento is smaller than half the bay area (but still larger than many mlb metros) but I’m also assuming that the current Oakland fanbase will still factor into attendence, essentially adding another million or so to that 2.4 number due to the small distance between them. Sacramento is the best choice because not only does it have the benefits of the San Jose move, where they would keep their Oakland ties, but also not encroach on the Giants territory. It would be an easier move to get through.

Scott Willis
Guest
4 years 6 months ago

One of the big issues with Sacramento is that it’s corporate base is fairly small for a city of its size. The biggest game in town is the State Government which probably isn’t going to buy too many luxury boxes and club seats. Not to mention the city is not likely to kick in any money for a stadium and upgrading the AAA stadium would cost quite a bit.

Sacramento could support a franchise but it would likely still be a small market team and not much different than the current status quo.

Dave McCarty
Guest
Dave McCarty
4 years 6 months ago

That’s ridiculous. Sacramento is a government city, just like Nashville and Charlotte, making it very difficult to generate the corporate revenue needed by an MLB franchise. And it’s not like private funding is the answer to a city and state that’s quite broke. San Jose is the tenth largest city in the country, and the fastest growing of SF, Oakland, and San Jose since the Bay Area became a two team market. Virtually all the land necessary for a ballpark in downtown SJ is owned by either Lewis Wolff or the city of San Jose, which plans on selling it to the A’s should they get approval. There’s an untapped market of nearly 1 million people that are being denied the right to have a hometown MLB team. No other major city in the country has land already designated for a ballpark, nor the EIR’s researched and published. San Jose is literally years ahead in the process.

Dave McCarty
Guest
Dave McCarty
4 years 6 months ago

“And it’s not like **public** funding is the answer”

AK7007
Member
AK7007
4 years 6 months ago

Speaking as a local in Davis, CA (15 min outside of sac) – I’d say it’s idiocy to try and bring a franchise here, the stadium would be near empty every night – but wow would it be cool to be able to see a game without the drive to the bay.

Shane
Member
Member
Shane
4 years 6 months ago

I’m not familiar with Sacramento or Nashville, but I would not call Charlotte a government city. By far it’s main businesses are financial institutions.

Monroe
Guest
4 years 6 months ago

In 1990 when the A’s went to the World Series, they drew 2.9 million, second in the AL to Toronto (3.8). No one goes to Oakland anymore because Al Davis built a huge wall of seats in the outfield – essentially making the Coliseum like every other defunct 2 sport coliseum from the 1970s. What had been a decent place to see a game became a monstrosity. If Oakland had a good, baseball only field, preferably on the water, people would come. It’s not about the market, it’s about the stadium itself.

Andre
Guest
Andre
4 years 6 months ago

Agreed. I’ve been to the Coliseum and never want to go back for no other reason than the ugly stadium. That stuff matters. The Nationals, my latest home team, on the other hand I love going to see because they have a gorgeous ball park.

Everett
Guest
Everett
4 years 6 months ago

The only reasons I like going to the Coliseum are that it’s really cheap (and free parking) and that the Mariners come through several times a year. The stadium itself is absolutely terrible, by far the worst of the 10-12 I’ve been to.

Chris
Guest
Chris
4 years 6 months ago

Andre: You really like the Nats’ park? I didn’t care for it too much. I’d much rather be in Camden, Coors, or AT&T. It’s got a lot of great stuff, but there’s just something about it that bothers me. I still go every chance I get because the Nats are such an exciting young team to watch and I love the game, but I dislike the park as a whole. There’s not even a good scene around the park to help the ambiance.

Brad Johnson
Guest
4 years 6 months ago

The Nats park is almost an exact copy of CBP and Target Field, which I assume are almost exact copies of some other stadiums I haven’t been to.

The Rajah
Guest
The Rajah
4 years 6 months ago

I can see Sacramento, but Nashville and Charlotte are tapped out. Those two cities aren’t big enough to support a third major league sports team.

Shane
Member
Member
Shane
4 years 6 months ago

Why do you think Charlotte is tapped out? The metro area might not have as high a population, but it is not a long drive from the Greensboro or Raleigh/Durham markets either. Both the Charlotte Knights and Durham Bulls have a good fan base, so there is interest in baseball. Personally I’d love it if the Rays relocated to NC, driving to DC , Baltimore or Atlanta to see a game live sucks.

stumanji
Guest
stumanji
4 years 6 months ago

I find it interesting this article lacks any mention of the Expos move to DC, infringing on the Orioles/Angelos territory. According to a little online research, I believe the settlement was a guaranteed sale of at least $365M for the Orioles, and a 90% stake in newly-formed MASN, with Angelos receiving another $75M from the MLB/Nats for the other 10% of the network.

Candlestick Parker
Guest
Candlestick Parker
4 years 6 months ago

The Nationals did not infringe on Orioles territory. Their territory is not even adjacent to Baltimore’s. The issue there was broadcasting rights, which are less protected under MLB rules than territorial rights. But the fact that Peter Angelos received compensation for them pretty much guarantees that the Giants will be able to demand at least as much in exchange for ceding San Jose to the A’s. If they are willing to deal at all.

BX
Guest
BX
4 years 6 months ago

Completely different territories.

DC and BMore are not the same market boundaries.

Shane
Member
Member
Shane
4 years 6 months ago

I thought territories were just market boundaries. DC and Baltimore are only 30 minutes apart

Dave McCarty
Guest
Dave McCarty
4 years 6 months ago

It’s quite sad that one of baseball’s most storied franchises is rotting at the hands of MLB’s inability to even address the issue at all.

Bhaakon
Guest
Bhaakon
4 years 6 months ago

It’s not really that simple, I don’t think. It’s clear to me that Wolff bought he A’s with the goal of greatly increasing the franchise value by getting around the Giants’ territorial rights and moving to San Jose, and has purposely mismanaged the team into an unmitigated disaster in the hopes of forcing his will on MLB.

The danger here isn’t just that big teams don’t want small markets horning in on their territory, it’s also that owners might not consider tolerating Wolff’s business plan–running a franchise into the ground in order to extort extremely valuable concessions the rest of the league–to be in the interests of the game. It was an embarrassment when it happened in Montreal, and it’s just as disgusting now.

Sam
Guest
Sam
4 years 6 months ago

The Athletics need 75% of the owners’ votes, however, and it can be inferred that the Athletics do not have the necessary 75% vote to move to San Jose. Otherwise, the move would have already happened or have already been announced.

Or, it could be inferred that MLB wants the vote to be as near unanimous as possible, so they’re holding off in hopes of getting the Giants to agree to a compromise.

In fact, the Giants and Athletics are the only two-team market that does not share the exact same territorial boundaries, so any potential shift in location would obviously result in a massive loss of revenue for the Giants.

The first clause in this sentence bears no relation to the second clause.

For example, if the Athletics move to San Jose and infringe upon the Giants’ territory, what would stop the Tampa Bay Rays from uprooting their franchise and moving to Indianapolis and snatching up physical territory from the Chicago Cubs and Cincinnati Reds?

In discussing the precedent a move to San Jose would set, you cannot leave out the part about how Oakland gave the Giants the rights to San Jose in 1990 when the Giants were looking to move to Santa Clara. This situation is easily differentiated from the scenarios you list.

That is why the Athletics have not been able to obtain the 75% vote they need to approve the move.

Objection, assuming facts not in evidence.

Lyle
Guest
Lyle
4 years 6 months ago

I couldn’t disagree more. The second excerpt you quote is precisely the problem with the move – and the two clauses are inextricably linked. San Jose is the growth area of the region. As part of the Giants’ territory, the Giants FO clearly looks to San Jose for corporate support. If the A’s move to San Jose, that corporate support will, inevitably, move over to their organization – great for the A’s, but it kills the Giants future. That’s not a solution that’s good for baseball.

JoeC
Guest
JoeC
4 years 6 months ago

Poppycock. There are plenty of corporations in the Silicon Valley that are actually closer to San Francisco than they are to San Jose (such as this little company you may have heard of called “Oracle”).

This doesn’t even account for the fact that the A’s are basically giving up the East Bay as a market to the Giants, as it will be much more convenient for East Bayers to travel to San Fran than it will be to San Jose.

Distance from Oakland to San Jose: 42 miles
Distance from Oakland to San Francisco: 12 miles
Distance from Foster City to San Jose: 33 miles
Distance from Foster City to San Francisco: 22 miles (Foster City is where Oracle is headquartered)

The Media
Guest
The Media
4 years 6 months ago

That’s just it, the Giants have no interest in gaining the East Bay market if it means giving up San Jose. No one in their right mind would make that trade voluntarily without compensation.

Nats Fan
Member
Nats Fan
4 years 6 months ago

Kill overstates the point

Greg
Guest
Greg
4 years 6 months ago

First, it’s not clear that it would have any impact on the Giants at all. How many of their fans live in San Jose? Have we ever seen any data on this point? What impact would it have on their TV contract? Second, this is all about fear that the Giants will sue MLB. The Giants were “granted” territoriality from the A’s on a handshake years ago when the Giants were playing around about going to St. Pete. For no consideration. So why would it be unreasonable for the Giants to shake hands in reverse?

Mike
Guest
Mike
4 years 6 months ago

Based on what I’ve heard, a lot of the corporate sponsors are from Silicon Valley which is in the San Jose area. The South Bay is quite a bit more wealthy than the East Bay. The Giants privately funded their stadium based on the fact that they owned the right to that area and the corporate sponsors that came with it, giving it back would clearly cause damage to their revenue.

The only reason the A’s gave up the territory to begin with is because if the Giants had moved south, it would have opened up San Francisco for the A’s. That didn’t end up happening and the new boundaries have been confirmed multiple times. There’s no reason the Giants should be expected to just give it back when it doesn’t benefit them.

MikeD
Guest
MikeD
4 years 6 months ago

So the A’s gave them the rights to San Jose so they could move south and then they didn’t move south? Okay, time to give the rights back.

JoeC
Guest
JoeC
4 years 6 months ago

Since it doesn’t seem like you live in the area, your opinion is lacking some facts. There are plenty of corporations in the Silicon Valley that are closer to San Francisco than they are to San Jose. Besides that, corporations will put their money on the winning team, wherever it is and the A’s aren’t going to be a winning team anytime soon.

The equitable solution is to split the Silicon Valley in half and to grant the East Bay to the Giants. But the Giants are being greedy and want things to stay exactly as they are so that eventually there will only be one franchise in the Bay Area (which is the way it’s currently headed).

Scott
Guest
Scott
4 years 6 months ago

There was an exception to those rights that always seems to be left out. Those rights were only to be given if the stadium was built in San Jose which it wasn’t.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mark-purdy/ci_20122325/purdy-owner-lew-wolff-turns-up-heat-giants?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com

AK7007
Member
AK7007
4 years 6 months ago

San Jose bleeds Orange and Black more than Green and Gold. Handshake or no, the Giants rely on having those fans to practically print off money since they pay $20 mil a year for the ballpark according to forbes. No public financing is expensive as you can get, and therefore the Giants can’t afford sympathy towards the A’s no matter where the rights originally came from. It wasn’t so long ago that the team was just breaking even, and now that there is money being thrown at them – why would they want to give that up?

Jason
Guest
Jason
4 years 6 months ago

What goes unmentioned is that the current Giant’s ownership paid for the rights to San Jose. The “gift” was to the previous ownership group.

Conversely – the A’s ownership bought the A’s at a discount becuase they didnt have rights to San Jose.

Keystone Heavy
Guest
Keystone Heavy
4 years 6 months ago

I got a kick out of this article. So Breen is against small market teams moving because they have no fans, because they may steal other teams’ fans? Well, if that is true, then it would seem that there just aren’t enough fans to go around.

Brad Johnson
Guest
4 years 6 months ago

Where did Breen say “I think that…”

This is an article, not a blog post. It’s not about Breen’s opinions.

Mcneildon
Guest
Mcneildon
4 years 6 months ago

Let me first admit that I know very little about the sports culture dynamics in the Bay Area. What this seems like to me is a scenario where a team that shares a market with another team is moving from one area of that market to another area in the market. I might not understand this fully, but shouldn’t that mean that there won’t be much of a shift in team allegiance within that market? If the Mets moved from Queens to Westchester County, would that alter the rooting patterns in the New York Market? I kind of doubt it.

I suspect the only reason the Giants really object to the move is that they see an opportunity to drive the A’s out of the Bay Area market by opposing the new stadium plan in San Jose thereby ensuring themselves 100% of the market. I feel like they probably wouldn’t be that concerned with the move if there were equally viable stadium options for the A’s in Oakland and San Jose.

However, like I said, I know almost nothing about the regional affiliation dynamics (or the general affiliation dynamics in markets that have two teams) so maybe I’m being ignorant in assuming that moving one of two teams in a market to another location in that market shouldn’t affect the overall fan affiliations.

Chris
Guest
Chris
4 years 6 months ago

Ding ding ding. The Giants want the whole pie. And the San Jose thing really comes down to corporate sponsors, not as much the number of fans lost.

Cass
Guest
Cass
4 years 6 months ago

I have no inside information, but I don’t really think that’s the core reason. Don’t get me wrong, it’s all about money–the Giants make money in San Jose, and San Jose actually has more people than San Francisco (and, admittedly anecdotally, having grown up in the Bay Area, IME San Jose skews heavily Giants). I’m not saying it’s about anything other than the cash that comes out of a fan base, or that anyone on the Giants side has motives any better than that, despite being a fan. But while I guess it’s possible that the Giants want the A’s to pack up and move to who knows where, I think it’s more about just simply keeping them penned up in Oakland and keeping San Jose and its surroundings for their own than someday, maybe, possibly, getting the A’s out of Oakland too.

But the thing that makes this sticky is not that the A’s and Giants have an overlapping market and the A’s want to move within the market and the Giants don’t want them to–which is what your New York example evokes. It’s that in the past a former owner of the A’s actually ceded the rights to San Jose to the Giants and this is in the MLB constitution (which is why it’s so hard for the A’s to move). It’s like in your example if the Mets wanted to move to a new stadium in a county which they specifically gave away to the Yankees several years earlier in a binding document. I do think that ultimately the move is good for the A’s, and, long run, good for baseball overall, but I also think that it would be bad for the Giants in the long run, and is in their interests to fight this if they can.

Mcneildon
Guest
Mcneildon
4 years 6 months ago

I agree that the most important point is that the A’s gave the Giants the territorial rights to San Jose 20 some years ago and it doesn’t seem like the A’s can do anything about that now.

JoeC
Guest
JoeC
4 years 6 months ago

The A’s did give the rights away for nothing (for once, it wasn’t about money) in an effort to KEEP the Giants from moving out of the Bay Area. Walter Haas was a good man.

The people who run the Giants now pale in his shadow, because they do not have the magnanimity to return the rights to the A’s who need this move for their very survival. For them, it’s all about the money and they have no interest in returning the favor granted by the A’s.

Bhaakon
Guest
Bhaakon
4 years 6 months ago

Haas was generous, but he isn’t the owner of the A’s either. The fact of the matter is that Baseball has changed a great deal in the last 25 years, and part of that change has been more owners who are more serious about running their teams like a business, a category which both the Giants current ownership and Wolff fall in to.

Now if you’re an owner who is serious about running your team like a business, then the very last thing you want is for territorial rights which you paid for when you acquired the team to be easily reassigned. If the league doesn’t move to protect one team’s assets, then all teams’ assets lose value.

Requiem
Guest
Requiem
4 years 6 months ago

Where is the Haas giving Lurie story coming from?

I looked for a specific article at the time with that information, but was unable to find one.

I did however find this quote, but again, it wasn’t at the time of the story.

San Francisco was given territorial rights to San Jose when the Giants moved west from New York in 1958.

Requiem
Guest
Requiem
4 years 6 months ago

Uggh, thought the cite would also produce a link….

The article is here:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=mlb&id=2017894

MikeD
Guest
MikeD
4 years 6 months ago

If the Mets moved to anywhere in the NY market, or if the Yankees moved anywhere in the NY market, it would have no impact on either team. Fan loyalties are not based on a team being five miles away or twenty miles away.

Mcneildon
Guest
Mcneildon
4 years 6 months ago

That’s what I assume.

a seattle fan
Guest
a seattle fan
4 years 6 months ago

Except now the A’s would be the San Jose A’s. So perhaps that would have an impact on people in San Jose having their own team.

BronxBomber
Guest
BronxBomber
4 years 6 months ago

The Giants and Jets play in New Jersey. But because they are nominally still NY teams, most of their fanbase is still in NY.

Joe D.
Member
4 years 6 months ago

The Giants become the lone proprietors of baseball’s largest metro area if the A’s leave.

DrBGiantsfan
Guest
4 years 6 months ago

The TV markets are the same. Attendance that comes to the Giants from the San Jose area could be replaced by folks coming in from the East Bay. This is all about corporate sponsorship. The big bucks for that are in the Silicon Valley.

The A’s claim they are OK with remaining a small market team. They just want to be more competitive in that role.

It seems to me that the least expensive and fastest way to address the problem is to build a baseball-only stadium in the Coliseum complex. It has easy access for autos and public transportation. Then the owner needs to temporarily increase payroll to field a competitive team. IMO, They also need a new approach from the GM position.

With a new stadium in Oakland and a better product on the field, I think the A’s would be a nice little profitable team.

gonfalon
Guest
gonfalon
4 years 6 months ago

“In fact, the Giants and Athletics are the only two-team market that does not share the exact same territorial boundaries, so any potential shift in location would obviously result in a massive loss of revenue for the Giants.”

No disrespect intended, but it is not obvious to me at all that the Giants would lose a massive amount of revenue if the A’s went to San Jose. Can anyone provide proof this is true?

mhad
Member
mhad
4 years 6 months ago

I think this largely has to do with advertisement and future TV deals. It is not likely the Giants would see a significant drop in attendance or support, as long as they continue to do well.

AK7007
Member
AK7007
4 years 6 months ago

Corporate types from San Jose rent out the luxury boxes and advertising space at AT&T since there are more Giants fans in SJ than A’s fans. If the A’s move in, then those same corporations will switch to the local stadium luxury boxes instead of driving through traffic. They might switch their advertising too depending on how popular the A’s become in SJ. San Jose is pretty massive, while Oakland is starting to deteriorate. I can see why they would want to move, and why the Giants would feel differently about things.

Jeff
Guest
Jeff
4 years 6 months ago

I’m unclear on the loss of revenue that you’re assuming for the Giants, and what the joint control of the market territories has to do with anything. I can understand how having an MLB team in San Jose could cause fewer South Bay residents to travel north for Giants games, but by the same token the A’s leaving Oakland means that more East Bay residents would cross the bay to attend Giants games. So I’ll need to see some more rigorous analysis before I buy into the idea that an A’s move to Oakland will be a massive hardship for the Giants.

More importantly, I don’t really understand what controlling territory has to do with revenue. Residents of the counties you listed are free to attend either A’s or Giants games today; a move to San Jose wouldn’t change that, although it would shift the relative convenience of attending one team’s games versus the other’s. Is there some other way that controlling territory generates revenue that I’m missing? As far as I know, the Giants and A’s each have TV and radio coverage in all of those counties.

Mike
Guest
Mike
4 years 6 months ago

Your missing the massive amount of corporate sponsors in Silicon Valley which is in the San Jose area. That area is simply a lot wealthier than the East Bay.

AK7007
Member
AK7007
4 years 6 months ago

And the central location – besides being wealthy, it is the focal point for pretty much the whole bay area.

BX
Guest
BX
4 years 6 months ago

but the Giants haven’t already taken advantage of the corporate sponsors in SJ.

Richie
Member
Richie
4 years 6 months ago

If San Jose were not a more attractive location, the A’s wouldn’t have been trying to move there for so long now.

Richie
Member
Richie
4 years 6 months ago

I’ve seen studies done by economists on other sites. The corporate money someone mentioned is big. The per-capita discretionary income in San Jose is much higher than in Oakland.

gonfalon
Guest
gonfalon
4 years 6 months ago

Okay, then it should be relatively easy to measure how much San Jose corporate money is currently going to the Giants (and to the A’s, for that matter), and put an exact cost on the revenue lost.

One would also need to measure the corporate money from the city of Oakland that currently goes to the A’s, and estimate how much would follow the team to San Jose, and how much would go to the Giants instead.

MikeD
Guest
MikeD
4 years 6 months ago

Okay, but why are people assuming the corporate money will stop going to the Giants?

AK7007
Member
AK7007
4 years 6 months ago

Lets pretend my company currently is in San Jose and rents a luxury box in AT&T along with advertising space in the stadium. It takes me an hour in traffic to take clients there, but whatever – its hellava lot more impressive than Oakland – which is also basically an hour away in traffic. Now lets pretend that the A’s move to San Jose and its only twenty minutes from the office and San Jose airport – I’m taking my VIP guests there, not San Francisco. Maybe I move my advertising money too, if fans in San Jose start to attend those weeknight games near home instead of sitting in traffic all night to go to SF.

Richie
Member
Richie
4 years 6 months ago

One thing I haven’t seen mentioned yet. My understanding is that, given how extensively they financed their own stadium (YAY!!), the Giants’ need to bring in more money than other ballclubs. So it’s not just a matter of greed on their part.

Drew
Guest
Drew
4 years 6 months ago

Errr that sounds exactly like greed on their part.

Mike
Guest
Mike
4 years 6 months ago

they privately funded their own stadium rather than have the public pay for it. therefore they need to bring in more revenue to pay off the stadium debt which goes through 2017 I believe. how exactly is that greed?

AK7007
Member
AK7007
4 years 6 months ago

Errr that sounds exactly like ignorance on your part, Drew.

The Giants have a $20mil/year in debt (according to forbes) to pay off that most clubs would foist directly onto taxpayers. I’d say that they are damn decent for not leaving town when it came out that they would have to pay for the whole shebang themselves, and gambled that they would be able to pay it off because they are extremely profitable and have San Jose basically to themselves. There aren’t any real villains here, because both clubs pretty much just want to be reasonably successful, but there might not be enough money to keep them both that way.

Drew
Guest
Drew
4 years 6 months ago

Mike: Maybe I’m getting caught up in the semantics. It is nice that the club was able to finance it’s own stadium (learned something today!), but I still don’t think it’s quite accurate to say they’re not greedy, being that they need to take more money than other clubs to support both the team and the stadium.

It’s like (very poor example incoming) a homeowner making 60k/yr saying that he needs more money than a homeowner making 20k/yr because the former has to pay off the lavish house he moved into.

Anyway, not my most coherent line of thought, and I’m pretty sure I’m rambling at this point, so I’ll stop.

AK7007: I agree, there are simply two clubs vying for the same territorial rights. The Giants hold the rights, and I understand why, from their perspective, they wouldn’t want to yield them back to the Athletics (though it does seem like a swift kick in the ass after Haas granted the Giants the SC territorial rights).

That said, I wonder about the money issue. Any idea of what percentage of the Giants’ income is based on SJ?

Nats Fan
Member
Nats Fan
4 years 6 months ago

When you finance your own stadium the city has no right to slap special taxes on concessions and tickets. As a result the Giants can charge less for those things and still have the same profit margin. It is hugely profitable to finance your own stadium in the long run because the city gets far less of the teams revenue stream 9well depending on the terms of the private public split). It is absolutely riskier to self finance because your not splitting the risk with a city and the city is less committed to your success. Plus, it requires more up front money to finance yourself. But in the long term it is far more profitable!!!

Shankbone
Guest
Shankbone
4 years 6 months ago

While the A’s might have lost money last year (debatable) Lew Wolff has been pocketing the revenue sharing throughout his ownership. Whether this is to build a war chest to pay off the Giants or not is debatable. He strikes me as more of a burn the house down for insurance money guy to me.

I feel bad for hard core Oakland A’s fans, who have had to suffer through Beane trade-offs and a complete lackluster product on the field. I also feel bad for the taxpayers of SJ if they do get to move and boondoggle a stadium out of the deal.

A’s and Giants have been sharing space going into the 44th year now. Both teams have enjoyed dismal crowds and big winning streaks (with good crowds). Seems to me the competition to put a quality product on the field should win out. If the Giants gain the whole bay would fans really trust them to consistently put a good team together? Beane’s latest screw you trade off strikes me as scorched earth.

I’m conflicted. Grew up in Oakland, first games were at the Coliseum, loved Ricky Henderson. Grandpa was a Giants fan, steered me away from AL clownball and silly uniforms. I think the big question for me is “how much corporate money is there to go around?” The A’s have too much rich history to be in limbo like this. For hardcore A’s fans sake, I hope Wolff gets forced to sell and they look into Jack London Square again. I think the Wolff pay off the Giants scenario is a lose lose for hardcore fans: the A’s leave Oaktown and the Giants Rainy Day Crew socks cash away, as they are prone to do (and to be fair, is their right).

I hate to see Giants and A’s fans snipe back and forth. I’ll always be a Giants fan (and there are a lot from the east bay like me) but a little mutual respect would go a long way in this situation.

Tim_the_Beaver
Member
Tim_the_Beaver
4 years 6 months ago

you make some misleading, if not false statements hear about attendance and how competitiveness will fix the A’s. This graph tells a pretty compelling story about how fans do not enjoy the Coliseum experience, compared to Pac bell, regardless of how well the A’s are playing

Shankbone
Guest
Shankbone
4 years 6 months ago

Tim the Beaver – misleading and false “hear”? I was talking in generalities of the past 43 years. Both teams have had miserable attendance, specifically in the 1970s. The A’s drew around 3MM in the late 80s with the Bash Bros. It could be PacBell is drawing away the casual fan, that would be my conclusion from your graph cited. I don’t necessarily agree that the stadium has to go in SJ to be successful, but i was in no way saying the A’s don’t need a new stadium, they do. See the part about JLS?

Andre
Guest
Andre
4 years 6 months ago

He was probably replying to the wrong comment but the point is valid.

B N
Guest
B N
4 years 6 months ago

Anyone who has been to both parks can find it pretty obvious that PacBell/ATT/NextRandomTelecom Park is a WAY superior venue to watch a game.

The Coliseum is a terrible venue for baseball, unfortunately. The sight lines are too long, the surrounding area is ugly, it’s far too big, the concessions are unremarkable (or were a few years ago), and it has very little character. Of these, only one can be solved without a new park. The only bright side is that you can get to the stadium by BART, so that is something I guess.

JoeC
Guest
JoeC
4 years 6 months ago

You say there should be more “mutual respect” and then you say things like “AL clownball” and “silly uniforms”.

Ok.

Shankbone
Guest
Shankbone
4 years 6 months ago

Many friends and immediate family members are A’s fans, they wouldn’t blink an eye at those sayings. Referring to message boards on the bay area papers for the real insults. Sorry to offend your delicate sensibilities.

JoeC
Guest
JoeC
4 years 6 months ago

No delicate sensibilities here, Shankbone. I just call out hypocrisy when I see it and it was pretty blatant in your post. Save your mock insults for a comment where you aren’t calling for “greater mutual respect”. It kinda kills your whole argument.

westcoast hero
Guest
westcoast hero
4 years 6 months ago

I am a huge Giants fan and I would like to see the A’s move to San Jose. The current state of the Oakland Athletics is depressing, and there is no light at the end of the tunnel in Oakland. I am sure the Giants will lose some current and future profit should this take place, but I think the Bay Area sports scene as a whole will be much better off with two successful and competitive teams. The Giants have shown the last year-and-a-half that their massive profits have almost no effect on team payroll spending anyway, so as a fan it does not matter to me how much money Larry Baer and Co. are able to pocket. In fact, a strong and popular A’s team will only give the Giants more incentive to invest into the team. In conclusion, go A’s!!

Buck Turgidson
Guest
Buck Turgidson
4 years 6 months ago

Bullshit. How is this not strong arming? If Wolff was a little competent there would be a new stadium in Oakland. Considering Selig is his fucking frat brother how has he not gotten anything done? Wolff will need to sell to make way for a solution.

BX
Guest
BX
4 years 6 months ago

Umm, city zoning.

Also: strong-arming a city into making you build a stadium is a GREAT way to become REALLY unpopular with the city, which isn’t good for bringing in your casual “I just want to see a baseball game today” fan.

Especially in Oakland, where a popular opinion, even if the project is privately financed, will inevitably be “they’re funding this and not schools/infrastructure/etc.”.

bill
Guest
bill
4 years 6 months ago

Move em to Indianapolis, stick the Royals in the AL West

Anti-Wolff
Guest
Anti-Wolff
4 years 6 months ago

The Giants have come out and said that 43% of their fan base comes from the San Jose/South Bay area. (Since someone was asking for numbers)

Imagine the letter “V” as a representation of the actual Bay Area; where SF is the left-side/top portion of the “V” and Oakland is the right-side/top portion of the “V”. San Jose is the bottom portion of the “V”; where residents can go up 101 to see the Giants…or up 880 to see the A’s. Wolff says the A’s “only want to move 35 miles away”, but what he’s not saying is re-locating to San Jose is essentially a flow control regulator for baseball fans driving up 101…and this will impact the Giants. If Wolff was moving 35 miles southeast to Pleasanton (which keeps him on the Oakland side of the “V”), the Giants would be applauding the A’s new stadium.

BTW…the Giants shouldn’t have to wait and see if East Bay fans eventually congregate to SF (like others have said would eventually happen), because they have their existing fan base and own the territorial rights to support that fan base.

AK7007
Member
AK7007
4 years 6 months ago

And I would be in heaven with a ballpark next door to my parents house, but lets be honest and not toy with my emotions now.

JoeC
Guest
JoeC
4 years 6 months ago

Both teams are sacrificing. It’s what’s good for the game, not what’s good for just the Giants or just the A’s. Take off your blinders.

Troy
Guest
Troy
4 years 6 months ago

The Giants did not claim that 43% of their fan base is in SC co. They said that it was 43% of their “territory”. This ignores the fact that SC is 40 miles away, where most fans come from a 20 mile radius, and ignores that the Giants get a lot of fans from the East Bay due to the close proximity and BART access throughout the entire East Bay.

gonfalon
Guest
gonfalon
4 years 6 months ago

re: BART access… FWIW, there are plans to extend BART light rail service to San Jose within the next 15 years, but currently the trains stop well short of San Jose.

BillWallace
Member
BillWallace
4 years 6 months ago

Here’s the proper way to look at this.
From an economic standpoint, there is massive consumer and producer surplus to be gained by moving the A’s to San Jose. So while the attempted move is certainly an attempt by A’s ownership to gain money, the money is not gained at the expense of the public, as in a bad stadium deal, but in conjunction with the public, who also gain overall. (San Jose residents gain more than Oakland residents lose).

The only real hitch is that the Giants lose. If the overall net present value of the gain to MLB is $600mill (I pulled all of these numbers out of my ass for the sake of argument). The gain might accrue as a $700 mill gain for the A’s franchise, a $200 mill gain for MLB in general from the revenue sharing angle, and a $300 mill loss for the Giants.

So if you can simply negotiate a way for the A’s to transfer $4-500 mill in NPV to the Giants franchise then literally everybody in MLB wins.

They have the ability through simple economics to create more pie, and all they need to do is find a way to share it so that everyone has more pie than they had before. The only people who get the shaft are Oakland fans.

As an adendum, for those of you not familiar with the Bay Area, San Jose is like 60 miles away from SF and Oakland, so while SJ baseball fans and corporate money are served in part currently by both the Giants and A’s, this huge revenue source is not tapped nearly as well as it would be if there were a team actually in San Jose. That team in my estimation would immediately join the upper third of revenue generators in MLB. This is the source of the extra pie.

Zachary D Manprin
Guest
4 years 6 months ago

I am sure there is an intelligent answer out there, but I find most lacking.

What makes anyone think that moving a few miles down the road would suddenly incur a rash of corporate dollars? If those dollars are available – why haven’t the A’s or Giants been able to secure them?

Further, putting a team in San Jose cuts them off from a large part of the current fan base that would not want to travel the extra time (miles are all relative in traffic land). San Jose already has the Sharks that do not do great business and a Giants minor league team that doesn’t exactly break the box office.

The A’s TV/radio deals in the past have been pathetic. The Cubs and White Sox stink annually but they have huge fan bases thanks to WGN. Ditto the Atlanta Braves and TNT. The Yankees and Red Sox networks make most teams drool. Those teams can feast on that revenue to cover most of their needs. The A’s meanwhile have dampened their own product by being on a pay cable network that doesn’t reach all of northern California and is not not available on all cable packages.

Silicon Valley is not exactly home to typical ‘sports folks’. California in general is not a bastion of professional sports first, then college sports, then other. There is a lot of money and time spent on other activities that simply not available to the rest of the country. The market in the BayArea is diverse and drastically different than anywhere else in the United States.

If you need a picture drawn; think computer geeks and neo-hippies who could not care less about professional sports.

Moving the team does nothing for the product on the field. The problem there is scouting, drafting and development compounded with a GM who makes terrible free agent deals.

The Coliseum is a dump, no question. But a fancy new baseball city in San Jose only makes an 80 year old Wolff richer.

The city of Oakland should ‘sell’ the Raiders off to Los Angeles and let the Warriors figure out what they are going to do on their own. The A’s are the only viable ticket. Once you get rid of one or two of the other ‘distractions’ for fan’s money – the A’s will be in decent financial shape.

Did anyone wonder why the A’s suddenly became poor when the Raiders moved back to Oakland?

To sum up; TV/Radio, Raiders/Warriors, unique market.

Throw in poor administration from the front office and you have the recipe for disaster.

To solve; new facility in Oakland. Better TV/Radio deals. Get rid of Raider and/or Warriors.

JoeC
Guest
JoeC
4 years 6 months ago

The problem is you can’t just magically pretend that there is a serious stadium plan in Oakland. It’s just not reality.

San Jose, meanwhile, has a plan and is ready to execute it.

The difference between the two cities and their readiness to build a new stadium are like night and day.

nickjp
Guest
nickjp
4 years 6 months ago

You literally have no idea what you’re talking about…

– The Sharks routinely draw better than most of the NHL and so do the Warriors despite being arguably the worst run franchise in sports.

– The SJ Giants ranked 2nd in their league in attendance.

Saying the Bay Area does not embrace pro sports and is full of “computer geeks and neo-hippies” is a drastic over-simplification.

In conclusion, SJ probably should have its own team but the Giants won’t do it without serious compensation (and being forced into taking it, too).

Bisonaudit
Guest
Bisonaudit
4 years 6 months ago

What BillWallace describes is more or less what happened with the O’s when the Expos moved to DC.

We’ve seen this movie before. At some point the posturing will stop and a deal will get done.

Monroe
Guest
4 years 6 months ago

If San Jose is so great, the Giants should move there and the A’s can move to San Francisco. Problem solved.

Nate S
Guest
Nate S
4 years 6 months ago

The A’s have won six pennants, four series, and and thirteen division titles in Oakland. Oakland is the hometown of Rickey Henderson and Dave Stewart. It deserves more consideration that a mere balance sheet analysis.

Andre
Guest
Andre
4 years 6 months ago

Sorry, but have you been to Oakland recently? I used to leave a mile from Oak town. Awful, awful place. Even the toothbrushes in super markets are behind lock and key.

Delirium Nocturnum
Guest
Delirium Nocturnum
4 years 6 months ago

guess you’ve never been to the hills – there’s some sweet beauty in Oakland (though not near the Coli, it’s true)

JoeC
Guest
JoeC
4 years 6 months ago

Yes, go where the rich people live. It’s much better.

Haha… ridiculous.

TheGrandslamwich
Member
TheGrandslamwich
4 years 6 months ago

Purely from a fan’s perspective, it really sucks being a die-hard A’s fan. It’s reached the point where I will never even purchase any player gear because I just assume the player will be traded in the next year or two.

I understand the need for a small market team to acquire inexpensive young talent, but it just gets more and more difficult to root for players knowing they will be in something other than the green and gold soon if they have any success.

There is a line between a fan being able to accept their team attempting to win on a budget and from them just feeling used and alienated. This offseason more than ever, the A’s have crossed it.

Griv
Guest
Griv
4 years 6 months ago

Unless you live here no one understands the dynamics of bay area baseball. Oakland has just as many fans as SF does, but the Giants are making more money solely on their location. The Giants have a nicer ballpark which bring in young families, business parters, and large corporations. The ballpark gives people a reason to go even if they aren’t hardcore fans. Nobody wants to go to Oakland because the Coliseum because its not as pretty. The Giants are in a larger market with more things going for them. The A’s have a fair amount of young prospects and will need money to sign them long term in the not so far future. This has gone on long enough, this is a pressing issue that needs to be resolved quickly.

me, Bob
Guest
me, Bob
4 years 6 months ago

This isn’t about San Jose, it is about the whole Bay Area and possibly all of Nor-Cal. The Giants know that if they can keep the A’s out of San Jose then the odds are that the A’s would have no other viable option than to move out of the Bay or, even better for the Giants, be contracted completely(the Giants could then go through the pockets of the A‘s lifeless body). The A’s want a competitive chance while the Giants want to eliminate that competition completely. Goodbye San Jose? Hello Portland, San Antonio, the Carolinas, New Jersey, Indianapolis, etc.
The simple solution would be for the city of San Jose to have a vote. Yes, they want the A’s or No, keep them out. Let Democracy run it’s course and if San Jose really wants the A’s then the Giants should just have to stay out the way while being properly reimbursed for having to relocate their minor league team. If San Jose truly “bleeds Orange and Black more than Green and Gold” like Mr. Kalashnikov claims then the Giants have nothing to worry about.

shthar
Guest
shthar
4 years 6 months ago

pfft.

What’s the MLB gonna do? Refuse to play?

Show up where the stadium used to be and declare a forfiet cuz the A’s are in san jose?

Fortune favors the bold.

Move the team, send the league office a change of address form and play ball.

BX
Guest
BX
4 years 6 months ago

Legalized monopoly. MLB has to approve everything.

Bhaakon
Guest
Bhaakon
4 years 6 months ago

Ultimately, they’d strip him Wolff of his ownership and take direct control of the team.

a seattle fan
Guest
a seattle fan
4 years 6 months ago

They should move to Baltimore. That city deserves a major league team.

None
Guest
None
4 years 6 months ago

Did you hear the Houston Astros will be joining the the American League West soon? The A’s need to get their act together. Bud is definitely
strong-arming the whole thing. Course the MLB ownership could let the A’s go belly up and then get an expansion team in the making. Much cheaper for MLB all the way around.

Matt
Guest
Matt
4 years 6 months ago

This is pretty simple for the Giants. If the A’s can’t survive in Oakland, and they can’t move elsewhere in the Bay Area, then they’ll have to relocate to a completely different market.

The status quo is probably fine for Giants management. Hell, if your team can travel to an opposing team’s stadium and reliably pull 75% of the “home” crowd, you know you’re dominating the market. Allowing the A’s to move to a different part of the same market that will allow them to be more competitive and draw a far larger share of the fans is the worst thing the Giants’ owners can do for their business.

This isn’t about East Bay, South Bay, etc. The specific territorial rights are a bargaining chip and no more. It’s about getting the competition to relocate somewhere else.

Bhaakon
Guest
Bhaakon
4 years 6 months ago

Exactly. The A’s building a new park in Oakland would be nearly as bad for the Giants as them moving to San Jose, it’s just that the Giants can’t prevent them from getting a park in Oakland.

John
Guest
John
4 years 6 months ago

The Rays should be moved to Connecticut somewhere in the middle of NY and Boston, drawing from both fan bases. Especially with the 18 games played a year against both cities.

Uncle Randy
Guest
Uncle Randy
4 years 6 months ago

That’d be awesome if the Rays moved to Portland. If the AL east was a high school, the Red Sox would be the jocky (wealthy) bros, the Blue Jays would be the nerdy kid, and the Rays would most definitely be the hipster kid with the cool glasses. Joe Maddon already has them even. It’s too perfect.

Joe Peta
Member
4 years 6 months ago

“Perhaps you feel, especially if you take a capitalistic-view of business disputes, that the Giants’ owners are simply protecting the value of their franchise by enforcing territorial rights they own. That’s just a sound business decision.

Would knowing that the A’s gave the Giants the rights to Santa Clara County twenty years ago, for no consideration, but rather for the best interests of baseball in the Bay Area change your thinking?”

Here’s a 2012 preview of the A’s that addresses the stadium issue and the effects it had on the current roster. Are the A’s playing a high-stakes game of chicken with the other 29 owners?

http://tradingbases.squarespace.com/blog/2012/3/13/2012-preview-oakland-athletics.html

Troy
Guest
Troy
4 years 6 months ago

Isn’t it more capitalistic to allow for a free market?

Brad Johnson
Guest
4 years 6 months ago

There’s more than one way to skin a cat.

This whole scenario is a tricky situation, but it’s also surprisingly straight forward. There are a LOT of ways to equitably solve this dispute, many of which are hit upon in the comments above.

If I may offer my opinion, it would seem that granting the A’s the right to move to San Jose absolutely should happen.

Equally important is that the Giants should receive ample compensation for the territory. They made long term business decisions predicated upon their territorial rights.

Any Athletics move to San Jose should be painful. In fact, it should be exactly as painful as remaining in Oakland – at least in the medium term. It’s essential that territorial infringement not be viewed as a potential revenue driver for small market owners.

Jimmy Dahmer
Guest
Jimmy Dahmer
4 years 6 months ago

Will the Giants really lose fans if the A’s are in San Jose? Giants fans are Giants fans and A’s fans are A’s fans, right? Aren’t the Giants the more popular team? Maybe over a decade or two I could see a shift in fanbase, but I don’t see the Giants losing a lot of money over it.

Jim
Guest
Jim
4 years 6 months ago

As a resident of Boston, its flat out absurd to suggest any team move here, especially the Rays. The team would not flourish even if it were a National League team. It’d be like moving the Cleveland Browns to Pittsburgh. On top of that there is nowhere to build a new ballpark. If there was then Fenway would be a museum right now.

Where the Athletics are concerned, now take into account my knowledge here is limited, why wouldn’t a move to Oklahoma City benefit them? That market fondly embraced the Thunder immediately. They’ve got one of the highest percentages of season ticket sales in the NBA and the taxpayers voted to increase their own taxes to pay for that stadium.

Nats Fan
Member
Nats Fan
4 years 6 months ago

If I could be king for a day I would move the A’s to Newark and keep them an AL team. That solves several of baseballs problems with competitiveness.

wpDiscuz