the latest plan is to build the stadium between David Ortiz' front teeth.

I have no childhood nostalgia about the Coliseum, nor any connection at all to Oakland or any other part of the East Bay (the only times I go over there are for baseball games or the occasional concert)... so I don't feel any betrayal about the A's leaving Oakland.  But I do feel sad, because I like the Coliseum and the game crowd there.  I'm afraid it will be a very different crowd at the new park, regardless of what city the park is in.  It will be like the difference between the baseball-loving souls at Candlestick and the "just want to visit the baseball boutique" attendees at Phone Co. Park (regardless of how you might feel about the Giants and their fans, the people who populated the miserable old pile of wet concrete through 1999 were FANS).

"I am ecstatic that we're not talking about Las Vegas or Portland or Sacramento."

since fremont fantasy is dead on arrival...

Given that Lew has made clear that Escape from Oakland was priority number one even before he purchased the team.  This is all about enriching Wolff and Fisher.  It is not about affording a better roster or making sure the seats actually face the field.  Those things may or may not happen as a result, but they are not the motivator, and anyone who thinks differently is a fucking idiot.  With all due respect to fucking idiots.

here.   The broadcast schedule is usually a few weeks behind, I'll see if I can find out from my former colleagues if it is on the list.

The one from the Contra Costa Times has a lot more detail on what Wolff says in the meeting, and paints a picture of a growing frustration level with the process.  A few items:

"More trees have been knocked down by environmental impact studies than developers. There are steps within steps. But we're going to follow them. We have no choice."

That particular process could take a year to 18 months. Wolff clearly isn't looking forward to the snail pace of it.

"We're going to do everything on our end to move it as fast as we can, but the process to a lot of people is the end process," he said. "A lot of people live on the process. It gripes the heck out of me."

His full comment on the prospect of ending the 40 year (and counting) stay in Oakland:

"We're still here, folks," he said. "We're not moving to Timbuktu. We're going to be down the street in a beautiful new facility. Anybody in this room that came out to the Coliseum, please try me one day and I'll show you how lovely it may have been in Oakland once. But it's not really great for us right now. I wish it were."

On traffic:

When Lurie phrased a question about the A's moving to one of the Bay Area's worst traffic bottlenecks, he shot back, "We think we're moving from one of the worst bottlenecks. I just don't accept it as one of the worst bottlenecks. It's one of the many bottlenecks, but the improvement of that area is under way right now."

WTF?  Is he on drugs?

And finally, on why we haven't done more with the market for Asian players:

"First of all, Asian players, probably if you asked them -- and could understand them -- they would like to stay on the West Coast," he said. "But the money that's being spent by the Yankees and Boston, they're having to make the extra five-hour flight."

Good luck with that quote, Lew.

how Wolff compares the frustration of going through the EIS process to people holding up a cure for cancer...sorry, pal, that one doesn't work.

I appreciate that he's really clear that he does not want the team to stay in Oakland, even though he acknowledges that "anything is possible."

I would think that even fans who support this plan would want the environmental and other reviews to be thorough. After all, this plan affects far more than just the ballpark.

I agree with Wolff that anything is possible. The plan could be approved and carried out, or it could be rejected. The A's could move far away or not. Wolff could also tire of being a part owner of a baseball club and sell. Life is full of possibilities.

I'm no L. Wolff fan, but his "and could understand them" quote, simply means "If you could speak Japanese (or some other Asian dialect) and understand Japanese, this is what you'd hear."
How many of you "understand" when a person speaks in a foreign language??  That's all he was saying.  Unbelievable.  

no one on the boards has any idea what they are talking about.

"LOL Oakland A's of Freemont!!"

Grrrrrrrr.

(wherein I lose my train of thought multiple times, indulge in gauzy self-reflection, pen an endless stream of run-on sentences, and, ultimately, give up on my argument)

I know that this in some ways lines up as a political argument, pitting the Atlas Shrugged, profit maximization as purest expression of human purpose, rising tide lifts all boats, greed is virtue crowd against those who believe that evil Machiavellian billionaires have set out to systematically ruin civilization for the sake of gratuitous ego gratification and a few additional helipads. We argue about whether the move proves Wolff is a greedy bastard, and about whether being a greedy bastard is really such a bad thing. We debate the economics, the political context, the connection (or lack thereof) between winning and making money, etc.

But in the end, this gets to the question of why we care, at all. Why we're fans. Why we're such rabid fans, in fact, that we post voluminously on a blog devoted to everything Athletics.

Players come and go (frequently). The organization's commitment to the community is, well, less than steadfast. The new ballpark will no doubt offer many fewer reasonably priced seats. Now, one can (persuasively) argue the economic logic in all those circumstances. Nevertheless, I think there exists a fundamental lopsidedness here, between the loyalty inherent in "fandom" and the bottom-line focus (not malevolence, just indifference) of ownership. Maybe a better way of putting it: being a fan is, basically, an irrational pursuit, one that relies heavily on a reflexive, somewhat vague, emotional allegiance to team that is rarely reciprocated by the team itself.

When I ask myself why I root for the A's, my answer, inevitably, is "out of habit". Which is strange, and kind of jarring, because I do care, a lot. As much as I ever have. I yell at the television during games. I scour websites for news about injuries and roster moves and prospects. I read AN. I get mad when Karl Ravech says something dumb about Dan Haren. I want the A's to win. But I can't come up with a good reason, other than "because I always have, as far back as my memory extends". And it seems like, given the widening gap between the team and me (pricing, location, player continuity, etc.), I ought to come up with something better than that.

This is distinct, I think, from basic product loyalty. I like my iPod because Apple has given me precisely what I want. I like the A's, but it doesn't have anything to do with how good they are, or where they move to, or how much seats cost. My loyalty isn't a result of the team catering to me, the consumer; rather, it persists in spite of getting the brush off. It thrives independent of my "relationship" with the seller or the product. And sometimes I wonder if that isn't kind of obtuse on my part.

I don't know. Maybe it's just more fun to be a fan than to watch games without a vested interest in the outcome. Maybe we all crave vicarious competition, and it's necessary to pick a vessel. Maybe (probably) the condition-less devotion I'm describing doesn't really apply to most fans. In which case, forget everything I said.

is now available in the left-hand news feed.  The interesting thing about it is that there are already six comments talking about how great it would be to have the A's in Sacramento (and one who thinks Sacramento's government is too Oakland-esque to get such a deal done).

I hate Lew Wolffe.

Oakland A's!!!

Let's face it, the Coliseum is brutal.  Traffic's bad on the way from pretty much everywhere, it smells like dried urine, it gets torn to shreds every September by the Raiders, and is located like, 10 blocks away from the crime capital of Northern California.  

Fremont can't really be any worse, and how many A's fans are we really losing?  The ones who won't drive the extra 25 miles down from the North Bay may be canceled out by the ones who'll be willing to drive in from the South Bay.  The Stadium will be nicer, overall (once again, how can it get worse?), and they still have 5 years to figure out parking/traffic situations.  

You may not like change, but nostalgia's not gonna stop the Yanks from moving out of The House That Ruth Built in 2009, why should it stop the A's from moving out of the Oakland Alameda Network Associates' McAffee Coliseum of Al Davis?

Finally, 32,000 seats is plenty for everyone.  It won't be accessible as the Coliseum, but it'll hopefully be made up for by the increase in overall quality of the stadium.  

P.S. --> Maybe the smaller stadiums will weed out the cell-phone throwers, who, frankly, embarass most A's fans.

fratboys suck.

Selig is THE worst commisioner in the history of MLB.

Can we get another Haas-sian family to save the A's?

Oakland A's!!!

transportation situation. They need to make that easy for those of us that like public transportation. I love the Niners but I rarely go their games because the stadium has no public transportation and is hard to get out of when the game is over.

It still could be Oakland, even when it gets floated down to San Jose for a series or two...or to give soccer a unique venue for the "Beane Team".

For the price of an A-Rod contract, you could get three supertankers that don't have the double-hull construction that is now mandated.  Chop the nose and tail off, and put the stadium up top.  Because it won't have to meet earthquake-shake requirements, the upper deck is cheap to build.

Of course, the French Navy aircraft carrier "Clemenceau" might have more panache as a "barge vessel".  A bit of an asbestos problem, though.  Exclusive parking by aircraft elevator!

You have a dredging EIR, but basically you put it in West Oakland near the existing container port facility.

Doubles as an emergency shelter when the Hayward fault rips next year, or in 2035.

I find it interesting that everyone blames Wolfe for moving the A's to Fremont, or wherever they end up.  I have been an A's fan since they got here and the problem is that the City of Oakland NEVER supported the A's. There were sites that we wanted downtown or by Jack London Sq but the city wouldn't have that. They wouldn't even begin to help Wolfe with the 66th ave to High street idea. Yes, I believe Wolfe really tried to stay in Oakland.

He is a fan and an owner. The plan he has is a way to build a new stadium using the profits from the developement project.  How else would he pay for the stadium. Fremont or Oakland won't buy the stadium so he found a way to do it.

I like the idea of the Cisco stadium, but not really pleased with the location.  I would rather have it next to BART. Maybe somewhere between 880 and 580 or like many said, next to Jack London.

I drive 28 miles to work every morning. That takes me from one end of Vancouver to the other.

So really, all you guys are getting is a single work commute to see your favorite team play Major League Baseball at a brand new stadium, with a team that might be able to hold its stars a little longer, and won't anywhere further for at least the next two decades.

Seems like a fantastic freaking deal to me, especially as I have to cross an international border and drive four hours either way (AND deal with Seattle traffic) to catch an MLB game locally.

And if you seriously don't think there'll be a BART extension to the ballpark within a few years of it opening, you're high.

You should be bowing and scraping before Lew for keeping the team local. If not for him, you could be commuting to Portland to see games.

by Ratto

but i have two worries:

1. transportation

2. the name

moving the team: show me the billionaire who wants to buy the a's and keep them in oakland, and will increase payroll despite having such low revenues because s/he views the team as a philanthropic venture and not a business.

and i'm glad to see many of my fellow asians choosing not to interpret wolff's comment in the worst possible way when there's a far more reasonable explanation.