A's future in Oakland not looking good

by gotgreen on Dec 20, 2005 8:22 PM PST

Found a new article in the Contra Costa Times just now. Looks like the city of Oakland is working out some new financial thing with the Raiders that will affect our beloved Athletics.

The deal includes abolishing the widely despised "personal seat licenses'' required of the football team's season ticket holders.

and how will that affect the A's?

A lengthy debate by the county supervisors revealed that the Oakland A's, the Raiders' fellow tenant at McAfee Coliseum, were less than thrilled by the new arrangement, in which the A's will be asked to share more revenue from advertisements inside the stadium with the Raiders.

It doesn't seem like Oakland's trying very hard to keep the A's around.

A's officials confirmed they asked for a three-year lease extension at the Coliseum in exchange for the new advertising setup, and were denied.

I love the A's and I want them to stay in Oakland but if the city of Oakland is not going to give them the love they deserve, I'm all for the A's relocating (somewhere else in the Bay Area, of course).

Tweet Comment 75 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

although I believe Oakland is the best

place in the Bay Area for the A's, I agree that the politicians don't appear to understand the value of keeping the team in Oakland.

by OaklandSi on Dec 20, 2005 8:25 PM PST reply actions

A's have no where to go

two ideas are San Jose and Vegas. Giants will nix the Sj idea and FLA looks like they are doing there best to get moved to Vegas.

City of Oakland really has nothing to fear about them moving. However!!!! Contraction is always a fear.

Why don't they just lick their fingers?

by novaoakland on Dec 20, 2005 8:29 PM PST reply actions

fremont?

"you know it's way cooler to be an A's fan" - billy beane to larry krueger

by gotgreen on Dec 20, 2005 8:33 PM PST up reply actions

Fremont does not have 300 Million

Why don't they just lick their fingers?

by novaoakland on Dec 20, 2005 9:57 PM PST up reply actions

It's gonna take at least

400 million with the skyrocketing cost of construction.

by sf drift king on Dec 20, 2005 10:52 PM PST up reply actions

FREMONT

Fremont has the savvy leadership to make this happen. And stadium development is on their planning commission's radar screen.

"You're born with two strikes against you, so don't take a third one on your own." -Connie Mack

by Filthyslurve on Dec 21, 2005 10:31 AM PST up reply actions

I doubt they'll be contracted

The A's new owner is the commissioner's ex boyfriend. So, Basically, I think Bud Selig recognizes the quality of ownership and management the A's have now, and he'll be unlikely to use the threat of contraction to pressure the A's to commit to a dramatically different arrangement.

by kvn on Dec 20, 2005 8:34 PM PST up reply actions

commissioner's ex-boyfriend?

does that mean what it seems to mean? you really shouldn't be spreading rumors about people being gay on message boards, though if there's some evidence I wouldn't mind hearing it.

by vk on Dec 21, 2005 7:50 AM PST up reply actions

It just means

Wolff and the commish are good friends from way back, which is one reason why he became the front runner in buying the A's.

by sf drift king on Dec 21, 2005 10:16 AM PST up reply actions

Sacramento

Perfectly viable solution for the A's.

A Beane in the hand is worth $60M in payroll

by jeepers on Dec 20, 2005 8:36 PM PST up reply actions

Portland too.

And Vancouver is the great darkhorse... 3m people up here and they fill that hockey arena every night.

by Ozzz on Dec 21, 2005 1:54 AM PST up reply actions

BC You Mean?

Harden will be stoked pitching on his homeground.

by arch on Dec 21, 2005 2:57 AM PST up reply actions

BC would be sweet.

But the last time a professional league tried a Vancouver/Seattle split, one franchise failed.

It seems to me that Seattle hockey fans are willing to cross the border to watch a hockey game at GM Place, and that Vancouver fans are willing to go down to downtown Seattle. Maybe that's just perception, but that's how it seems.

Damn! Street is so imposing, he even causes the earth itself to freeze in fear! - monkeyball

by Jjjsixsix on Dec 21, 2005 10:36 AM PST up reply actions

Nah...

Hockey hasn't been that big here in Seattle since the Metropolitans became the first U.S. team to ever win Lord Stanley's Cup back in 1917. We're content with the T-Birds. I go watch a hockey game or two if the Stars are in town but getting back into the States is such a pain in the ass these days that it isn't worth the hassle. There are quite a few fans that come down from Canuckistan to watch Mariners games and I am sure there would be a few more if you sent Harden this way. ;)

"And it's proven that 99 percent of baseball fans have no idea what they're watching." --Carl Everett

by AgentProvocateur @ Athletics Nation on Dec 21, 2005 10:51 AM PST up reply actions

San Antonio

Pushin for an NFL team to go with its championship NBA team... why not an MLB team too? True, lots of Texas teams, but that hasn't stopped the NBA to get three pretty successful franchises going there (Houston, San Antonio, Dallas)

If a move to the east is possible, a Carolina team is needed...

by Alon on Dec 21, 2005 6:48 AM PST up reply actions

Carolina

Sigh...an MLB team less than six hours away? Dare I dream? :)

But that's selfish of me. I hope the A's stay in Oakland (or at least relatively near it).

The Marlins, on the other hand...

AN Member Location Surveys: Results | Take part

by FormerHuntsvilleStar on Dec 21, 2005 8:43 AM PST up reply actions

If you don't think they'll move to SJ....

you're dreaming. Wolff is connected up the wazoo to SJ and to Selig. He can pay off Magowan easy using Fisher and still have plenty left for a ballpark in SJ. Plus Fremont is doing alot more to get a park built then Oakland is. Frankly Oakland deserves to loose the team the way they've treated them the last 10 years. The city has done nothing but hurt the A's at the expense of helping the ungrateful Raiders and Al Davis. If San Jose or Fremont will treat the A's right then as much as it pains me, I say go for it Wolff. SJ is better then Las Vegas or Portland. Because the Oakland leadership has their head so far up Al Davis' butt all they can see is Silver and Black.

by athletics68 on Dec 22, 2005 1:52 AM PST up reply actions

Are the A's

The Marlins of the AL (winning team, trading away good players, playoffs here and there and also not a good stadium deal)

The tragedy of life is not that it ends so soon, but that we wait so long to begin it.-W. M. Lewis

by doublehustle22 on Dec 20, 2005 8:31 PM PST reply actions

we have Billy Beane

by kvn on Dec 20, 2005 8:36 PM PST up reply actions

I don't think so

for example, in terms of total attendance: in 2005 Oakland was #19 out of 30 MLB teams,while the Marlins were # 28.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/attendance

Also, since 1999 the A's have either made the playoffs or fallen just short of doing so. The Marlins won the World Series twice in the last 9 years but have had some mediocre teams during the same period...and last year, when on paper they seemed to be the strongest team in the NL east, they severely underperformed.

by OaklandSi on Dec 20, 2005 8:37 PM PST up reply actions

not to mention

our payroll is way higher

by kvn on Dec 20, 2005 8:38 PM PST up reply actions

It wasn't

until the Marlins dealt away $42 million of theirs... it was about the same until then

by Alon on Dec 21, 2005 6:49 AM PST up reply actions

Payroll

Which highlights the difference between the Marlins and A's. Despite people feeling toherwise, the A's have not made dramatic cuts in payroll at any point in the last 5 to 10 years. It has gone up year over year most of the time.

The A's are run right. The Marlins aren't.

by jeffro on Dec 21, 2005 9:05 AM PST up reply actions

and it's also interesting to note

that in 2005, Cleveland -- with its exciting team that almost made the playoffs, plus a brand new ballpark -- drew fewer fans to its games than did Oakland.

by OaklandSi on Dec 20, 2005 8:40 PM PST up reply actions

An 11 year old ballpark

isn't brand new anymore.

But compared to ours, it's damn close.

Damn! Street is so imposing, he even causes the earth itself to freeze in fear! - monkeyball

by Jjjsixsix on Dec 20, 2005 8:50 PM PST up reply actions

I feel old

by kvn on Dec 20, 2005 8:51 PM PST up reply actions

has it really been that long?

Seems like only yesterday they were trying to get out of their dual-purpose stadium...

by OaklandSi on Dec 20, 2005 8:52 PM PST up reply actions

Gosh, it seems

like only today I was writing this. Wow.

Nico

by Nico on Dec 20, 2005 8:56 PM PST up reply actions

in a word, no.

in a few more words, we don't have Jeffery Loria, franchise killer. Remember, this guy killed off Montréal too. Perhaps he was under commisioner's orders, but that was a viable market, and he singlehandedly killed it. (Well, there was the strike too, but seriously, I think it was pretty much the combined efforts of Loria and Selig, the former being a tad more responsible)

Now he'll have a team with about 500 people at each game, a ton of mad season ticket holders who aren't going to renew for life (and likely eat their tickets this year), and increasing ticket prices won't even come close to helping.

Our team won't sell off our players to get a stadium deal - our owneriship isn't that stupid.
The Marlins version of playoffs here and there is that when it's not here and there, they aren't competitive. We've been competitive for a good seven years. And Florida has never won their division, but then again, our division doesn't have the magical Atlanta Braves.

So all in all, no. There are some slight parallels, but the parallels are very very slight and end almost before you see them. (The final statement made no sense.)

Damn! Street is so imposing, he even causes the earth itself to freeze in fear! - monkeyball

by Jjjsixsix on Dec 20, 2005 8:49 PM PST up reply actions

Two things have been

constant over the last 30 years:

The A's are always about to leave Oakland
They don't

Nico

by Nico on Dec 20, 2005 8:42 PM PST reply actions

Just because

you're not paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

Copernicus felt the same way about the geocentric crew.

by salb918 on Dec 20, 2005 8:47 PM PST up reply actions

And just because

I fall down, it doesn't mean that I'm drunk.

OK, bad example.

Nico

by Nico on Dec 20, 2005 8:51 PM PST up reply actions

I think the line is

You don't have to be paranoid to know that they're out to get you

by Alon on Dec 21, 2005 6:51 AM PST up reply actions

Thankyou Nico ...

Always nice to agree with you once in awhile -- very well said and so true! I've been a fan since '71, and the "sky is always falling."

VacaAsFan

by Vacafan on Dec 21, 2005 10:38 AM PST up reply actions

2010 San Jos-A's?

San Jose is the key. Wolffisher's recent moves, both on the team roster and in a larger Bay Area development sense, give the clear indication that they're thinking local not national. Florida's wanderlust also helps cool the more far-flung options. But the aw-shucks grins and batted eyelash flirtations seem both more mutual and more serious between the A's and SJ of late.

Again, the newballpark blog has been very informative over the last month. Some of the history of the South Bay territorial rights and the upcoming renewal of the MLB Operating Agreement suggest that the Giants' hold on the area may be far less sure than folks think. And remember, the brotherhood of Wolff Selig and Reinsdorf OK'd the new A's owner group with almost unprecedented dispatch last year. Anyone who thinks there wasn't some understanding between them on relocation is kidding themselves.

Nico is right that "the A's are leaving" has been "the sky is falling" line around here for decades. But IF San Jose offers a package soon, and IF it comes with MLB and SF Giants understandings to overcome obstacles a la DC, the City of Oakland is going to be unable to answer in either a quick or competitive manner. I said it in another thread: I'd now bet even money that the next ballpark for the A's is in the greater San Jose area, taking on the entire rest of the world as the field.

Beat the Angles (they're obtuse!)

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Dec 20, 2005 9:15 PM PST reply actions

When did that Ballpark Blog...

...become the on-line home of the Baseball San Jose?

That's all I read there anymore...but I just don't see it. I mean...SAN JOSE? Hell no! Your suburb/wanna be city couldn't even hold on to a MAJOR LEAGUE SOCCER team!! How on God's Green Earth do you expect to support major league BASEBALL?

by He Can Foos on Dec 20, 2005 10:13 PM PST up reply actions

Just to be clear

I want the A's the stay in Oakland. San Jose is not "my" city...I live near and work in Oakland, my kids were born in Oakland, and if the A's move I'm gonna get to see way fewer games. I'd like nothing more than to hear lots of news about Oakland's plans to keep the A's here, but from that source comes naught but silence of late, while the news is all from the South Bay. You can't blame bloggers or posters for that.

Beat the Angles (they're obtuse!)

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Dec 20, 2005 10:25 PM PST up reply actions

OK. It's not your city...

...I still can't see it.

by He Can Foos on Dec 20, 2005 10:42 PM PST up reply actions

ok

Have you ever heard of the SJ Sharks. Mind you they are SELLING OUT games even though there was no NHL season last year. Soccer is not a popular enough in the US. San Jose is the largest city in the bay area, its no suburb city. Have you even heard of Silicon Valley? More money there than Oakland ten fold. I still want the A's to stay in Oakland but its a little naive to call SJ a wannabe city or suburb.

Bill Stoneman is about to be offered three seasons of a right-handed version of Vladimir Guerrero - Rev Halofan

by pickinmachine on Dec 20, 2005 10:50 PM PST up reply actions

oh come on...

we all know half of San Jose is suburban.

Evergreen and the Almaden Valley, and West SJ, and North SJ... it's all suburban.

Damn! Street is so imposing, he even causes the earth itself to freeze in fear! - monkeyball

by Jjjsixsix on Dec 20, 2005 11:29 PM PST up reply actions

And what is Oakland?

And what is Oakland? Seems to be if you strip out Berkeley, Fremont, Concord, Walnut Creek, Pleasanton, Hayward, etc. etc. there isn't a whole lot left. Oakland is not a "big" city.

Baseball teams exist on their metro areas. The real argument is that the East Bay (not Oakland!) is a larger and stronger financial base than the South Bay. And both are stronger than the Penisula.

by racodd on Dec 21, 2005 7:14 AM PST up reply actions

Oakland is and has been

the geographical heart of the East Bay, ever since its founding. It was the northern terminus of the transcontinental railroad. It has a wonderful baseball history. It is still the best place geographically for a major league team that draws from north, east and south of the city. that's how it got the A's in the first place.

With an ownership truly committed to keeping the team here and properly promoting it, plus a political establishment that understood the economic benefits of a well-placed ballpark, Oakland would once again be a very viable and successful venue for MLB, as it has in the past. Unfortunately, these two items don't seem to be operating.

by OaklandSi on Dec 21, 2005 8:28 AM PST up reply actions

Oakland

And the reason why Oakland doesn't seem to be responding? Oakland lacks the political leadership to do this. Oakland is not viewed as the "political" leader of the East Bay. I'm not certain there is a political leader in the East Bay. And therein may lie the problem.

San Jose, on the other hand, is the clear leader in the south Bay, and the leadership in San Jose assumes this role and carries the load.

Don't confuse my comments with my thinking the A's should move to the South Bay. My agrument always is that the East Bay is the target (with as much of central valley as you can gather in), and this is the most viable economic market in the greater Bay Area. The A's should stay in the East Bay.

by racodd on Dec 21, 2005 9:10 AM PST up reply actions

And SJ's leadership is...

trying to do stuff, but has a censured lame-duck mayor (which really means nothing, but whatever) and a secretive council.

Gonzales isn't going to be taken seriously for the rest of the term, so unless you can convince Cortese, Chavez, or Reed that a new stadium is the way to go, it isn't going to happen.

The political leadership in San Jose is useless until Gonzales is out, I'd think. Gonzales' agenda isn't going to be carried out for the rest of his term... noone is willing to associated themselves with him anymore.

Damn! Street is so imposing, he even causes the earth itself to freeze in fear! - monkeyball

by Jjjsixsix on Dec 21, 2005 10:42 AM PST up reply actions

I agree with you

I have been saying that the Oakland political leadership hasn't shown that it appreciates what proper support for this team can do for the city and the entire east bay.

by OaklandSi on Dec 21, 2005 11:35 AM PST up reply actions

I agree,

and I hope the A's can and will stay in Oakland. I want that so bad that it caused me to holler at Reztips on way more than one occasion.

I think the real movement won't happen until Jerry Brown is out as mayor. And I think Wolff is aware of that. The issue then becomes who will succeed Brown? De La Fuente has shown a willingness to at least talk to the A's and come up with some Oakland-based ideas. Dellums is an unknown quantity.

Really, deep down in your heart, don't you think it's time to get rid of Stomper?

by 66th Hegenberger on Dec 21, 2005 12:31 PM PST up reply actions

The SHARKS??? Hahahahahaha!!!

They average what? 16,800 or so per date? Let me know when they crack 3/4 million in attendance for a season.

By that logic Sacramento is a viable alternative.

by He Can Foos on Dec 21, 2005 12:09 AM PST up reply actions

It is.

And any city that attracts 17,000 people to a hockey game (seriously, who watches hockey anymore?), should expect to increase that by 80% when they bring in America's favorite pasttime.

by Ozzz on Dec 21, 2005 2:04 AM PST up reply actions

Hockey vs. Baseball attendance

Your argument of "the Sharks attract plenty of fans so therefore a major league baseball team will be successful" has a major problem. There are half as many home hockey games as home baseball games, and a baseball sellout is 2.5 times as many people as one in hockey (i.e. 16K vs 40K or 17K vs 42.5K fans). Thus you need to draw fives times as many people to games to reach "sellout status". Add in the fact that baseball games are every day of the week (making attending all of the games almost like a job) while the Sharks have exactly one set of games on consecutive days (March 18th and 19th) and it is much easier for folks to attend lots of hockey games than baseball games (on a percentage basis). I've seen studies and the local metro area sizes required to support a baseball team is significantly higher than any other sport, IIRC at least 6 times the required population of any of the other major league team sports.

Btw, if hockey sellouts are the yardstick then Calgary should be a good place to put a baseball team....

by skwid on Dec 21, 2005 7:27 AM PST up reply actions

Its not just about the sharks

its the fact that the team is supported so well in the city of SJ. The size of SJ plus the east bay fans would be more then enough to support a baseball team on an everyday basis.

Hockey sellouts arent the yardstick, in terms of baseball being successfull. It was just a point about the support. Do the warriors even sellout their games now that they have a decent team?

Also note how expensive hockey tickets are, the cheapest seats are 17 bucks and there arent that many. Most people at the games pony up anywhere from 40 - well over 100 bucks for 1 game. So yeah, I do think the sharks are significant enough to be a factor.

The population numbers are their and the corporate money is there. Baseball WOULD work in San Jose.

Bill Stoneman is about to be offered three seasons of a right-handed version of Vladimir Guerrero - Rev Halofan

by pickinmachine on Dec 21, 2005 11:05 AM PST up reply actions

Well said.

N/T

by Ozzz on Dec 22, 2005 10:36 PM PST up reply actions

The Arena

is incapable of holding 750,000 people over a 41 game period, but if it could, they definitely would have such attendance.

Damn! Street is so imposing, he even causes the earth itself to freeze in fear! - monkeyball

by Jjjsixsix on Dec 21, 2005 10:43 AM PST up reply actions

Hey, I'd like to write about Oakland's progress...

...but Oakland isn't giving me any reason to. All I hear is either "We're working on it" or rumors about Oakland's demise. If Oakland was half as aggressive as San Jose in trying to keep the A's, you can bet I'd be filling the blog with updates about it regularly.

I've even submitted ideas for sites and development in Oakland. I've met with community groups. Sadly, that's more than I can say for Oakland officials.

Look inward for the solution, don't blast others for trying.

by vertig0 on Dec 20, 2005 11:16 PM PST up reply actions

Oakland...

...doesn't need to be "half as aggressive" as San Jose.

Oakland already has something San Jose will never have: A major league baseball team.

There's a reason why SJ will never get a team: IT'S NOT A MAJOR LEAGUE CITY. It's a minor league town. An MLS/arena football/indoor soccer type of place. Basically, SJ is Stockton, but lucky enough to be close to Oakland and Frisco.

Loserville.

Get with the program. Start to support the SJS Spartans and the quaint little single A team in town. Maybe try and get an ABA franchise.

But major league baseball? Oh HELL no.

by He Can Foos on Dec 21, 2005 12:19 AM PST up reply actions

Loserville?

You do realize that Lew Wolff made much of his fortune building San Jose, right? That he has properties in San Jose but none in Oakland? That he and his wife are major contributors to charities in San Jose? That his daughter lives in Los Gatos and has been "selling the A's" on his behalf? That he personally knows just about everyone in San Jose that he would rely upon to make a ballpark deal?

Keep resting on your laurels, and what happens? The team leaves. San Jose has just experienced it. Oakland could very well be next.

I've been repeating a mantra on the blog which is almost universal when it comes sports venues: It's all about the deal. All this posturing about what is a major league city and what isn't has no hard numbers behind it. It means nothing for the bottom line. It's MEANINGLESS.

by vertig0 on Dec 21, 2005 12:44 AM PST up reply actions

Man

why are you so defensive?? People are just stating what they believe based on facts from newspapers and other sources, and here you are taking a personal offense to it.

Just calm down a bit -- we all hope the A's stay in Oakland. No one here wants them to move (though I wouldn't mind a return to Philly... you can take the Phillies). All anyone is saying is that SJ is a distinct possibility based on revenues for less popular sports, total population, population growth, and real estate values (SJ is the tenth most populous city in the US, the 3rd in California, and on the rise -- not to mention it's the safest city in the US according to a governmental report, which is certainly attractive to would-be newcomers)

Just because it's a giant suburb doesn't mean it can't host a baseball team. LA is the most sprawling city in the US, and it manages to host 1 and 1/2. True, LA's population is much larger than SJ's, but SJ is also more more compact (LA is 465 square miles, SJ is 178.2)

Again, I'm all for the A's staying in Oakland. But if the city officials don't get their act together, SJ is a more-than-viable answer to keep the Athletics in NoCal, and more specifically in the Bay Area.

by Alon on Dec 21, 2005 7:06 AM PST up reply actions

Forgot:

stats on city populations and other factual references made from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Jose%2C_California
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_angeles

by Alon on Dec 21, 2005 7:07 AM PST up reply actions

the a's are never going to sj

they'll go to berkeley before that happens.

YABU: You're always eating cheese. ...Is cheese good for you? . FISCHER: IT'S BETTER THAN SUSHI!!!

by ConditionOakland on Dec 20, 2005 9:58 PM PST reply actions

Of course,

if they move to Berkeley they'll have to change the team's name, since "A's" could be seen as insensitive to the learning disabled. The "Berkeley Pass/Not Passes" is a possibility, though.

Nico

by Nico on Dec 20, 2005 10:30 PM PST up reply actions

Funny!

by He Can Foos on Dec 20, 2005 10:41 PM PST up reply actions

Just the Passes

Not Passes is unfair to the learning disability community. Kick their a---s, Berkeley Passes!

by vk on Dec 21, 2005 7:54 AM PST up reply actions

The A's in Berkeley...?

MoooooOOooooo

YABU: You're always eating cheese. ...Is cheese good for you? . FISCHER: IT'S BETTER THAN SUSHI!!!

by ConditionOakland on Dec 22, 2005 1:20 PM PST up reply actions

Is there anything we can do?

Are there any rallies that can be held or meetings to attend to voice our support for keeping the A in oakland and letting Wolff develop the land?

ProActiv Solution: It moisturizes my situation, perserves my sexy. ? -P. Diddy

by Dig the Long Ball on Dec 20, 2005 10:49 PM PST reply actions

besides going to as many games as possible

and signing every petition that I have found

I finally bought season tickets.

(I can't do that if they leave Oakland)

by OaklandSi on Dec 20, 2005 10:56 PM PST up reply actions

here, here...

I'll be on the season ticket bandwagon soon.

by sf drift king on Dec 21, 2005 10:36 AM PST up reply actions

Sacramento makes more sense

but isn't AN magnifying this posture taking by two negotiators trying to maintain their poker face?

A couple of thoughts:

Oakland benefits with professional sports teams
A's owners have the ability to buy & build a park any time they feel like it. Involving the city is protocol and public relations to ownership as wealthy and efficient as the Fishers.
Will Oakland counter the proposal with one of their own? Maybe 3 years is not appealing to the city & county. Maybe Oakland would prefer a term that implies a commitment to the area by the A's owners. Maybe 10 years is the City's idea of a minimum term for a worthwhile lease?
Again. I would think we are seeing posturing by the two negotiating sides and that the real dance will spin off how good the A's are in 2006 and how that translates to profit making and gate.

Owning a major league team is appealing to the very rich. They somehow make a profit while ringing up well publicised shortfalls and "losses".

I'm not picking on any side here. I'm making a point. The point being that the A's like Oakland fine, Oakland likes the A's fine. Now they need to negotiate an agreement. This negotiating is what we are "peeking" at. A sometimes nerve wracking experience.

Look;
A 3 year deal is good for what?

"...It might have been a great year with a real DH."

by A s Eh on Dec 20, 2005 10:56 PM PST reply actions

Sacto

Sacramento is a smaller media and population base than Oakland (and the East Bay). How is this better for the A's? If the A's were to move to Sacramento media dollars would go down, not up. How is this a good thing? At least with San Jose the A's would still have access to the Bay Area media market

by skwid on Dec 21, 2005 7:31 AM PST up reply actions

Metro Sac is nearly 2M people

The city itself is exactly the same size as Oakland. Unlike the Oakland area, there are two key differences:

Sacramento is growing explosively. The metro population is expected to near 4M by 2030.
Sacramento is not a transient town. Most of the people here either have roots here, or put them down.

I would prefer the A's remain in Oakland. But Sacramento would be a solution that still allows the A's to take some advantage of their current base, while tapping into a large new one. I think of the remarkable crowds that OKC is drawing for Hornets games, and find the potential very similar.

A Beane in the hand is worth $60M in payroll

by jeepers on Dec 21, 2005 8:53 AM PST up reply actions

Wow. Shitty news for the A's about the advertising

Ugh. Oakland could at least try to keep them around. Just a little. :-/

"Baseball fans are junkies, and their heroin is the statistic." -Robert S. Wieder

by Kyli on Dec 20, 2005 11:55 PM PST reply actions

I wrote about this a month ago

http://newballpark.blogspot.com/2005/11/sometimes-it-pays-to-read.html

This makes the settlement complete. I wrote that it ends a lawsuit that the Raiders brought against the for allegedly withholding stadium ad revenue. What I don't understand is why the Coliseum Authority wouldn't want to keep the A's a few more years by extending the lease through 2013. The only thing I can deduce is perhaps Wolff wanted three more years of one-year options with a buyout clause, which wouldn't improve things for the city in the least.

by vertig0 on Dec 21, 2005 12:26 AM PST reply actions

if i know anything about business,

its "money talks, bullshit walks". wolff and co. aren't dummies. if the pols in oakland continue to screw with the A's bottomline wolff and co will move the A's. pure and simple. and does it really matter to you oaktown folk where they go? they won't be in oakland....thats all you need to
know. as for the SJ option, don't kid yourself. if wolff and co REALLY want to relocate the A's in SJ they'ii find a way. previous ownership groups may not have possessed the political clout and/or cash to make it happen. wolff does. be forewarned and expect the unexpected.

by bigelephant on Dec 21, 2005 5:58 AM PST reply actions

But if we leave...

I want to be known as the San Jose Athletics of Oakland.

by mikedaviswhereareyou on Dec 21, 2005 9:14 AM PST reply actions

Oakland vs. other cities

If the A's want a new ballpark, what does it matter what kind of deal the A's have at the Coliseum? It's going to be a non-issue once the A's move into a new ballpark. So pretending that it matters in the long run just sounds like posturing.

These people that keep saying other parts of the Bay Area besides Oakland are the only way to keep the A's in the Bay Area, frankly I don't trust them. I think they have their own agenda and they are politicking.

by mitchellpage on Dec 21, 2005 9:43 AM PST reply actions

The city officials

Yeah, who's to say the city isn't calling the A's bluff and spurring them into a stadium decision?

Also, I haven't seen mentioned here that the city also rejected the Raiders' request for a three year extension (according to the Tribune spit).

"You're born with two strikes against you, so don't take a third one on your own." -Connie Mack

by Filthyslurve on Dec 21, 2005 10:41 AM PST up reply actions

You guys are forgetting one thing

With all the talk about San Jose being a viable alternative to Oakland, we could be losing one of our biggest supporters in Mayor, Ron Gonzales. He is in hot water over the NorCal deal and could possibly be recalled. Who knows how this will affect SJ's push to lure the A's.

He's been touting bringing MLB to SJ for some time now and has even contacted the commissioner on having Giant territorial rights removed from his city so that SJ can qualify for expansion or for the relocation of another team.

by sf drift king on Dec 21, 2005 10:48 AM PST reply actions