SF Mag Article on A's to SJ
by johnjahafanclub on Nov 27, 2009 10:38 AM PST
Email
Printhttp://www.sanfranmag.com/story/now-pitching-for-san-jose
Interesting and fairly detailed article in the December issue of San Francisco magazine on the A's intentions on moving to San Jose. I think it would be a great move because it would get them further from the Giants, get them the new smaller and fancier stadium they need, be in a larger population area that has a higher per capita income, and be closer to Silicon Valley's numerous corporate headquarters.
...this article will be the first place where the two A’s owners have decided to make their case for San Jose.
It also says the Giants are still strongly opposed to the move.
The Giants will likely disagree. Though the team had no comment for this story, managing partner Bill Neukom was quoted in the summer as saying that the A’s “can’t have the South Bay.”
I know a lot of you don't want the team to move but I think that is already a foregone conclusion. If it's not San Jose, then it won't be anywhere in California. Staying in Oakland or moving to Sacramento are pipe dreams. I think we need to rally around management here so that they can have our full support in their upcoming battle against the Giants in trying to get the territorial rights to San Jose.
106 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
San Jose
Makes things harder for me personally to get to a game. I totally understand the reasons for moving.
That said, Nuekon is a total dill weed for saying the A’s “can’t have.”
1- has he learned nothing from Los Napstos (tm jeffro ARR)
2- The South bay was given to the Giants from the A’s without compensaton
3- Does he think MLB cares what one owner thinks when there might be four new pennies to make by moving a team?
2. Without compensation, there is no contract
by redtopcowboy on Nov 27, 2009 1:02 PM PST up reply actions
Not exactly
There was compensation given in 2 ways:
1) If I remember correctly the A’s were given the North Bay, which while not a fair trade is compensation.
2) The A’s received a BENEFIT in that they were hoping the Giants were going to move 45 miles south of them. The deal falling through because Santa Clara refused to tax themselves is not the A’s fault.
20 years later was it a fair contract, HELL NO, but it does meet the requirements of a contract.
Sometimes life will strike you out on a curve ball and the only choice you have is to flip off the umpire and walk to first base anyway.
by Threepwood XX on Nov 27, 2009 10:06 PM PST up reply actions
Thanks for the link johnjahafanclub
interesting article. Some of it was stuff we’ve all read before and some of it seemed like it was written by Lew Wolff’s publicist but it was nice to finally hear something from Fisher.
As I understand, it would take the approval of 75% of baseball owners
to override the Giants territorial rights. This means the owners of seven teams would have to dissapprove of the plan. So you’ve got the Giants, and possibly the three other teams in the A’s division. Other than that, which three teams would vote against an SJ move and why? A more fiscally solvent A’s means more money for all of MLB via media licensing and one less team that is heavily dependent on revenue sharing. The only possible downside I can see from a generic-MLB-owner perspective would be the debt the A’s would incur from building a new stadium, but this hasn’t stopped other teams in the past.
While the Giants’ territorial rights are certainly an issue which will take time to resolve, I’m sometimes surprised by the extent to which the press presents them as an interminable obstacle to the SJ plan.
"When you get that nice celebration coming in the dugout, and you're getting your ass hammered by guys, there's no better feeling than to have that done." -Matt Stairs
The teams in the West would presumably support a move
They play more games in Oakland than any other team in the league and would like to see their cut of the gate when on the road increase as well. I wouldn’t expect them to block the move just to be jerks because they are in the same division.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
I'd imagine
My personal bullcrap speculation is: The votes against would be Giants and potentially Mets/Yankees, White Sox/Cubs, Angels/Dodgers. Although that is just on the principal that they wouldn’t want their markets invaded at some future date.
The big difference between those teams and the A’s/Giants is the way their market territories are defined. In all of those two team markets they share identical footprints. In the Bay Area MLB defines the territory as covering seven total counties with five belonging to the Giants and two belonging to the A’s.
This situation is really unique. The DC Baltimore situation isn’t even really the same thing because the marketing territory for the Orioles didn’t include DC. That argument was over media market infringement. Not an issue in this case. The deal worked out in that case guaranteed franchise value for the Orioles, guaranteed media revenue (by giving the Orioles controlling interest in a regional sports channel that the Nationals have to play on) and total revenue.
In that case, Los Natspos move was announced before a deal was reached despite Angelos threats of litigation. That was because MLB owners have signed an agreement that states they cannot sue another team or the league and that all disputes between owners will be resolved by the Commissioner of Baseball.
In this case, I imagine a deal will need to be worked out prior to any sort of vote taking place (if a vote takes place). I hate to speculate, but if there is a deal I imagine it will include guaranteeing Giants franchise value, guaranteed annual revenues and perhaps some sort of direct payment from the A’s to the Giants.
I hope they don't give up too much
knee-capping ourselves for the forseeable future would kinda negate the benefits of building a new ballpark. Well, except for the development deals part of it. Which is probably the pie Lew’s got his thumb in.
When they vote, the 75% support will be there
Bud Selig is known for not taking votes until he already knows the outcome.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Wrong.
It will be 100 percent, save one. Selig is just that meticulous.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
In other words, we agree?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Yes.
We agree. Anyone who wants to understand the mind of Selig should read the book “Juicing the Game”. The writer really did his homework and everything I’ve ever seen or read about Selig merely reinforces his point of view.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
Yeah
We have all seen Bud’s consensus building skills.
My point was more that the details between Oakland and San Jose will be important. If, for instance Oakland has a site and will use redevelopment funds to buy up all the property and lease the land back to the team at a steep discount and the A’s can get the same sort of stadium built without having to pay the Giants a dime, without the league having to guarantee franchise value, etc. Well, then there may be pressure by MLB for the A’s to make it work.
If the A’s have to make too large of a payment per the deal worked out, they may prefer to avoid it altogether and pay more (but less than they would have had to pay the Giants) to make a stadium happen at OFD Training site.
They may bring pressure on Oakland to publicly finance a stadium. Stranger things have happened. Who knows?
It’s all about the revenue streams at the completion of a stadium project. Both MLB’s and the A’s. I am pretty sure there is already a projected number that the A’s and MLB have in their collective pockets. We shall see.
Selig is all about public financing, this is no secret.
Every hitter likes fastballs, just like everybody likes ice cream. But you don't like it when someone's stuffing it into you by the gallon. That's what it feels like when Nolan Ryan's thrown balls by you. ~Reggie Jackson
ie, suing for a share of profits that they never deserved
in the first place.
I wonder where this ranks on the pink-hat-guy / ORLY?-owl-photographer spectrum of douchebaggery.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
The Angels would likely vote in favor of the A's
Their ownership if cozy with Lew Wolf, and they would love to set the precedent to try to get shared LA media rights with the Dodgers.
Sometimes life will strike you out on a curve ball and the only choice you have is to flip off the umpire and walk to first base anyway.
by Threepwood XX on Nov 27, 2009 10:11 PM PST up reply actions
Most would vote yes.
Thinking about the move most AL teams would like it since they would get more money from the gate. Yanks and Boston would love not to pay any revenue sharing. So this leaves us with the Giants voting No. Dodgers and SD yes. Rockies yes. So looks like the only ones voting no would be giants and any owner friends they have.
There's an old saying....
“Money over bitches”. In this case, that saying will include friends too.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
Putting it in perspective
Steve Kettman, the author of the article, once dated Lew Wolff’s daughter (he notes that fact in the article). He’s friends with Wolff and he’s friends with Beane. This is a puff piece of sorts, and that should be kept in mind.
However, because of that, he’s essentially speaking in Lew Wolff’s voice.
Woilff is saying (1) they have the site; (2) they have the money; and (3) they have the stadium package approved by the City of San Jose, signed and sealed, if only the Giants turn over territorial rights.
Wolff’s main nemesis is Neukom, who I’ve heard is a top-notch trial attorney. My feeling is this is the first, definitive opening salvo in that war - and Wolff knows it will be a struggle to get other teams on his side. The reason is simple: this gentlemen’s club is soon to go to war with the players union, and they need a united front. An intramural food fight is the last thing they need, and if Neukom and company cannot be convinced that San Jose is in their own best interests, then the politics amongst team owners gets very strange, and the owners will find themselves in a weak position when the real war comes.
So, this article: Wolff, in his comments to the Chronicle last week, and more forcefully this week, says he expects to hand over the Oakland and North Bay A’s fans to the Giants. Kettman does NOTHING to dispute this statement, which is patently false. A’s fans will not “migrate” to the Giants. When the Dodgers and Giants left New York, their fans did not “migrate” to the Yankees. Because the A’s will remain on television in the Bay Area, a new Giants fan base will NOT emerge in the East and North Bay. The kind of migration Wolff talks about is a load of crap.
So who is this article written for: Well, mainly Giants management and fans. A San Jose stadium won’t take away Giants fans. Au contraire, any fans who live will be replaced by North Bay A’s fans. Any South Bay money will be replaced by East and North Bay money. The Giants become THE TEAM for San Francisco AND Oakland.
Wolff may be right, and San Jose may indeed be the only place for the A’s to migrate. But Kettman’s a mouthpiece here. Hope he’s well paid for his efforts.
Believe me, you will see more takes very soon
I believe Oakland will release something of a concept next week. The rumors I have heard place the site at the OFD Training site.
This is the opening salvo.
I would only add to richwol1’s summary the following: I hope Ray Ratto, the Contra Costa Times editorial board and all the others who wrote similar pieces espousing the Giants company line in the wake of Fremont’s failure received due recompense.
Being able to crib the SF mag article and shoehorn it into their own columns
instead of having to write something themselves is recompense enough.
You wouldn’t believe the number of times lazy writers take a press release, fudge around the wording, and slap their name at the top.
I think you've underestimated Bud.
He’s the architect here, and has been for quite some time.
This is merely the beginning of the end game.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
I don't
If I were to set a percentage for what I believe the outcome to eventually be based on my speculation and the facts as I know them, it would be 65% San Jose.
But I don’t like to say stuff like that because there is plenty about this situation that none of us know and as a result there is a context that is missing from our observations.
It’s easy to follow what has been reported in the local print media and see that MLB may be buying into what Uncle Lew’s selling. The Stadium Committee meeting with San Jose is the most recent evidence of this.
In the end, Oakland will make a proposal that has been a long time coming. If the revenue situation for the A’s (and thus MLB) is better in Oakland then the team will stay. I think it is premature to say it will or won’t happen until the plan is known.
Great comment!
But I think Selig has already firmed up his plans. In fact, I think he knew what he wanted done when he made contact with his old buddy Lew way back when. If Oakland stands a chance, they better have cash in hand.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
Yep
See my comment above about pressure being brought for public financing. I honestly think that is the only way the team stays in Oakland. I would, if I were an official of the City, tell MLB to have fun in San Jose if that was the case. But who knows what Oakland would really do? Not I, that’s for sure. I mean, look at the Raiders deal for crying out loud.
For the record, if MLB brought pressure on San Jose to use public money for stadium construction I would expect the same response. The difference being that in San Jose, the City could only commit to a ballot initiative (one that would fail miserably I think) to approve public stadium construction.
I know, I know… the team has said ti won’t seek public money, but that doesn’t mean they won’t suggest the City offers it without a formal request from the team:)
I imagine that the revenue projections MLB is using set a price in Oakland that is acceptable. I also imagine that price is considerably less than the “acceptable” number in San Jose. What that number is in either location I have no clue and I hate to speculate on this stuff.
I just hope this is all cleared up in one way or another within the next few months. At least that MLB will make some sort of report based on the stadium committee’s findings.
This concerns me.
I imagine that the revenue projections MLB is using set a price in Oakland that is acceptable. I also imagine that price is considerably less than the "acceptable" number in San Jose. What that number is in either location I have no clue and I hate to speculate on this stuff.
I understand you’re just speculating, but this makes me think such a scenario would allow the team to continue the claims of poverty and “small market” if they were to stay in Oakland under any circumstances. I want this team to be able to have more legitimate options when building… and keeping… a competitive team. I am so not excited at the notion of more of the same, just dressed up in a shiny stadium.
Every hitter likes fastballs, just like everybody likes ice cream. But you don't like it when someone's stuffing it into you by the gallon. That's what it feels like when Nolan Ryan's thrown balls by you. ~Reggie Jackson
I have a new drum and I'm going to bang it.
I have come to believe that the Giants really aren’t opposed to the A’s moving to San Jose at all. They already know that, geographically speaking, they’ll gain more fans from the East Bay than they’ll lose from the South Bay.
What does hurt the Giants is the A’s getting a nice new stadium. As long as the A’s stadium sucks, the Giants draw better, no matter where in the Bay Area the A’s are located. If the A’s get a nifty new stadium, that will eat into the Giants’ market, no matter where in the Bay Area the A’s are located.
Therefore I believe that the Giants are playing this territorial rights card not because they care at which end of the Bay the A’s are located, but just because they want to delay the A’s new stadium as long as possible.
And for that reason I don’t want to give them a goddamn cent in compensation. Bastards.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Nov 27, 2009 1:22 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
That's a different take iglew
which is what you’re good at. It’s possible that the behind the scenes fight between the A’s and Giants might be more interesting then anything that happens on the field this season.
And that's why Jason Christiansen hit our guy that time...
…Ooh, now I wanna retaliate!
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
That sounds like one of Nico's report cards
“Little Iglew offers a special and unique contribution to the class. He’s very good at ‘having a different take’.”
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
hmm...I have to give this comment a B-
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Is there any extra credit available?
What you fail to understand in your joyless myopia is that baseball is the key to life-- the Rosetta Stone, if you will. If you just understood baseball better all your other questions your, your... the, uh... the aliens, the conspiracies they would all, in their way be answered by the baseball gods.
Progression to the mean!
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
This is the nail ont he head
I’d add, the Giants don’t want to delay a new stadium in the Bay Area… they want to block it and hopefully see on go up in Portland or Sacramento.
I don't think the Ginats cosnider it to be
Petey Mac, back when he was the Managing Partner for the Giants said as much. He said the A’s could move to Fremont or Sacramento. They do not want the A’s in the Bay Area. They’d love to have a market the size of the Boston Metro region all to themselves.
Portland maybe SacTo NO
Portland, from what my yuppie friends up there tell me it’s on the rise. Hell, enough craft breweries to keep the locals happy.
With the depression, I think the bubble has burst on several cities like Las Vegas.
I think the big reason for the red herring is so many states and major cities are hurting bad for tax dollars as it is. There’s been a big shift in folks attention to bonds, taxes, and government spending (major reason approval for health care has fallen 20% in just the past 2 weeks).
We all know Lew isn’t gonna pay for it by himself, so he’s very limited. The tech industry is one of the few still going strong.
It's just more exciting with Billy Beane running the team.
apologise
the “economic slowdown.”
Considering CA’s huge deficit issues and NYC’s incredible shortcoming without those inflated incomes on Wall Street, one could be forgiven for using such a harsh term. But yes, not a depression. But our currency could be screwed if we don’t get our sh*t together.
It's just more exciting with Billy Beane running the team.
That's why I've converted all my money to old Carney Lansford
baseball cards. I figure that will be the new currencey when everything crashes.
Sigh... Dan Johnson
CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."
half of all 18-25 yos in this country are unemployed.
yes its a depression.
"Since other people actually read these threads, though, probably best that your particular brand of wrongness not go completely unchallenged." - PT
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Nov 28, 2009 7:33 PM PST up reply actions
Where does that come from?
I can’t imagine you’d just pull a number out of your ass, so I assume someone has cooked up some overbroad definition that lets you claim that and back it up. What is it? Are you including full-time students not looking for work?
Bureau of Labor Statistics data for October 2009, which is the latest currently released, shows 25.6% unemployment for ages 18-19 and 15.6% for ages 20-24. The BLS report is here. The relevant table is on page 16.
That’s plenty bad as it is. I’m not sure what good is served by making dubious exaggerated claims when the solid data is already alarming enough. It just makes you sound like a partisan whose data can’t be trusted.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
by iglew on Nov 28, 2009 8:05 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Great post!
Hyperbole from above to the side, I wonder why so many are unemployed; is it because, given the true cost of labor once evreything is factored in [federal minimum wage, payroll taxes, workman’s compensation insurance, other mandated insurance], these unemployed teens are not viewed as being able to bring enough additional revenue to a business to justify those costs?
by LowcountryJoe on Nov 29, 2009 5:26 AM PST up reply actions
Here
The number of young Americans without a job has exploded to 53.4 percent — a post-World War II high, according to the Labor Dept. — meaning millions of Americans are staring at the likelihood that their lifetime earning potential will be diminished and, combined with the predicted slow economic recovery, their transition into productive members of society could be put on hold for an extended period of time.
The number represents the flip-side to the Labor Dept.’s report that the employment rate of 16-to-24 year olds has eroded to 46.6 percent — the lowest ratio of working young Americans in that age group, including all but those in the military, since WWII.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/the_dead_end_kids_AnwaWNOGqsXMuIlGONNX1K#ixzz0YH6sVMTz
"Since other people actually read these threads, though, probably best that your particular brand of wrongness not go completely unchallenged." - PT
There are differing opinions on me. According to Iglew "DFA is PT with a sense of humor. PT is DFA with introspective self-doubt. I like them both" but according to sirbed Im "The Stats Killer"
by designatedforassignment on Nov 29, 2009 10:36 AM PST up reply actions
Thanks.
I knew you wouldn’t make up stuff like that. But the NY Post would. It serves their purpose more to alarm than to inform.
NY Post : BLS :: Joe Morgan : Baseball Reference
I see what they did now. They’re taking the employment/population ratio and subtracting it from 100%. That’s accurate insofar as it goes, but it’s not how “unemployment” is traditionally defined, so it’s just asking for people to misinterpret it. (Interesting how commenters on both sides of the partisan divide are eagerly grabbing this new stick to beat each other with it.)
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
But still, if it's a Post WWII high, it's pretty significant.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Nov 29, 2009 7:56 PM PST up reply actions
Who gets a "post WWII high"?
That’s just wrong.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Al Stewart got the Post World War II Blues instead
BTW, good song if you feel like listening to a slightly more British, better version of “We Didn’t Start the Fire.”
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
It is indeed significant.
I just objected to the way in which the terms were being muddled in such a way to make it sound like the actual unemployment rate is 50%, which it’s not.
Teenage unemployment is at an all-time* high. Over-65 is also at an all-time high. In the 20-24 range it’s very high but not the highest ever.
That unemployment rate is even more inflated in the teen and senior segments than in other age groups suggests to me that it has to do with a greater portion of those groups actually looking for work than in the past, which is an interesting phenomenon in itself. (It is also widely suggested that minimum wage is involved, but I find that hard to gauge, particularly since it’s such an ideological issue for many.)
*"all-time" = “post WWII high” = since they started tracking it, ie, since 1948
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
On a similar notion, I always figured they knew it was a foregone conclusion,
but the more bitching and moaning they do beforehand, the better compensation they’ll hopefully get when it all goes down.
That’s the same reason I think they bought into the SJ Giants. When the little Giants move, they’ll be getting compensation as well.
Kudos to the ownership for not asking for the taxpayers dimes if SJ is the place.
But $80 million to get told “No!” in Fremont? That really sucks.
Gotta question the assumption that a SJ Athletics franchise would appreciate two to three times its currently estimated $300 Million in such a relatively short period of time. Although in order to pull the trigger on a $400 million (or so) stadium development cost, one had better expect that kind of appreciation in the value of the franchise to make it worth the expedature.
Sounds like the author is pretty confident of the move…why else put your @#$% out there and risk the embarrassment of being wrong? I imagine that he’s done his homework or is at least cheating off the paper of someone who has.
It’s time to move on; the paying fanbase is just not holding up their end of the bargain the way things are now. @#$%ing-a!; $80 million?! Where’d (who) all that money go (to)?
The are actually getting a lot of $$$ from San Jose.
It’s just not in a form the taxpayers have to vote on.
All that last the City of San Jose has been buying up cost a lot of $$$, and the A’s are getting a MASSIVE sweetheart deal on it and the property taxes that go with it.
Sometimes life will strike you out on a curve ball and the only choice you have is to flip off the umpire and walk to first base anyway.
by Threepwood XX on Nov 27, 2009 10:18 PM PST up reply actions
*All the land
Sometimes life will strike you out on a curve ball and the only choice you have is to flip off the umpire and walk to first base anyway.
by Threepwood XX on Nov 27, 2009 10:19 PM PST up reply actions
True that
The A’s appear to have a lease deal in place which will allow them to avoid property tax.
It will be interesting to see what Okalnd’s plan is. If they can come up with some financial incentives that minimizes the capital outlay by the A’s tey might keep them. I seriously doubt it after the moronic deal that brought the Raiders back.
Property tax no, another tax yes
I learned during one of the Good Neighbor meetings that the A’s would still be paying a Possessory Interest Tax, which is levied on large companies who lease large civic-owned properties. The amount would be similar to an actual property tax. Ex.: Private firms that run convention centers usually pay this tax.
there seems to be a tax for everything
do you know the difference between what one would pay in property tax versus what one would expect to pay in PIT?
I am now humming Michael Jackson’s PYT. I want to be with you, PIT, Possessory Interest Tax…
Not significant
PIT is supposed to be around 1% of assessed value, so it’d be like property tax with the extra assessments. The major difference is that the PIT would be only on the ballpark, not the land. That’s the exact situation the Giants are in.
Possessory interest tax is basically just
a property tax substitute for any property leased from the government. It’s just a way to make sure that a property does not become tax-free when it is functionally treated as owned in most respects except that the government retains actually ownership.
There’s a good description of it on the L.A. County assessor’s website
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
AN has taught me many things
I feel like the kids at the end of South Park… “I learned something today.”
lots of assumptions from AN contributors ...
i’ve seen all this before … both teams were all but gone before …
the city of SJ, has some voting to do, no one knows how that will play out. I don’t know if Wolffe/Fisher were serious about Fremont, but that vote didn’t work out well.
The state of California may go bankrupt next year. The A’s ownership may be dreaming a dream that cannot materialize in the next few years, of economic unpredictability.
" Sleepy Floyd is Superman!!!"
Good point-
The state of California may go bankrupt next year.
The Economy may be the largest factor.
What is it, 29 billion in the hole?
Your assumption is that there's really still individual states that...
…the United State of America would let go bankrupt. [triple checked for typos]
by LowcountryJoe on Nov 28, 2009 4:38 AM PST up reply actions
Well, if there's one state that certain groups of people would be happy to tell to go screw themselves
it’s us in California.
We might be very greatful for the honorable Congresswoman from the 8th district, somewhere along the line
I suspect that you think tilting at windmills means something other than what it does
reserve clause
Baseball is a monopoly. Monopoly’s are illegal in this country. Baseball gets around it with the reserve clause. Baseball has never allowed a challenge to its “unique” standing to be tested in court. The reason: baseball would lose. Baseball always settles before reaching the courts.
Baseball will not stop the move of a team (whether the A’s or any other team) to the south Bay if San Jose and Santa Clara County want the team. Baseball may drag out the “negotiation”, but they will not allow the issue to go to court and test the reserve clause.
Now that you’ve had this legal interpretation from this retired Civil Engineer, I’d like to see some comments on those in the know legally address this aspect of this potential move.
It’s my interpretation that as soon as the City of San Jose officially announced they were pursing the A’s, and Santa Clara County endorsed the action, the fate of the A’s was established. They are going to San Jose. The only question is when.
RAC
Good point
Combine this argument with the necessity, as I mention above, of keeping a united front during negotiations with players, and it seems pretty obvious that the issue will be settled amicably. The Giants will eventually get some concessions, and it’ll be a done deal. At that point, the only thing that could throw it would be either fiscal, or from voters in the new location.
The counter-argument:
“Baseball is not a monopoly. It is a single organization that has many franchises with different owners. McDonalds also has multiple franchises with different owners. To say baseball teams are colluding is like saying McDonalds restaurants collude when they all agree to set the same price for a Big Mac. The real competitor to McDonalds is not other McDonalds, but rather other restaurants. The real competitor to MLB teams is not other MLB teams, but other forms of sports entertainment.”
Whether this holds any water, I don’t know. But I assume that would be the main theme of MLB’s argument were the point ever to be decided in court.
Is anything stopping anyone from organizing a rival league? If someone tried to start a rival league and MLB muscled them out, that would be monopolistic behavior.
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
The argument
…is that MLB will not go out of its way to test its anti-trust exemption. After the steroid controversy, and with player issues looming, a territorial squabble is in no one’s interest. I think it’s pretty easy to understand that, at a certain point, and at Bud Selig’s discretion, the Giants will be forced to negotiate an end to their rights. I don’t think this will come to a vote, and Kettman’s prejudices notwithstanding, and notwithstanding sale of the club or non-MLB related issues, this thing is going to happen.
I feel like I’ve entered Kubler-Ross’s fifth stage: acceptance.
It has always been my understanding...
…that major league baseball CAN stop teams from moving, precisely because of their anti-trust exemption. That may be a tad simplistic, but is basically it in a nutshell.
MLB also has a long and interesting history for changing it’s mind on a whim when it comes to matters such as this, and anybody who thinks the Giants’ territorial rights are carved in stone… including Giants ownership… is incredibly naive. It is my opinion that the Giants know San Jose will happen for the A’s, whether they like it or not, but are merely posturing themselves for a Peter Aneglos-like compensation package. It is also my opinion that MLB gave Aneglos such a great deal because it was the path of least resistance to shutting him the hell up, not because they had to.
This is why you don’t see team moves on the same scale as in other sports. NFL teams move as often as they do because the league has no power to stop them. The NFL does not have an anti-trust exemption. The only that is still keeping the Raiders in Oakland is not the NFL, but the contract they signed with the City of Oakland for the stadium.
Every hitter likes fastballs, just like everybody likes ice cream. But you don't like it when someone's stuffing it into you by the gallon. That's what it feels like when Nolan Ryan's thrown balls by you. ~Reggie Jackson
The reserve clause
has been tested by the Supreme Court several times. It’s always stood, which mystifies me to no end.
But you’re correct…..in recent decisions the court has shown itself hostile to the notion, albeit in a subtle manner.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
What clause are we talking about here?
I was under the impression that the “reserve clause” was the one that prevented players from becoming free agents. I thought the reserve clause was essentially extinguished after the Curt Flood case, and the league’s right to work out things like territorial rights, etc, is a completely separate matter.
The actual clause is the clause that used to be in all player’s contracts, right? So what does that have to do with preventing teams from moving?
"Go ahead and overachieve, you scrappy Brett-Favre-colored walk-takers." —Rev Halofan
There is no reserve clause any more
That was a player-control device which, as you say, was done away and has long since been replaced by whatever terms the players and owners collectively bargain. rcodd means antitrust exemption, which is a court-granted status unique to MLB, though Congress could legislate it away at any time.
Everybody's got a little light under the sun.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Nov 29, 2009 4:35 PM PST up reply actions
re: team relocation & anti-trust
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1286
In 1998, Congress passed the Curt Flood Act, which partially repealed the antitrust exemption to give the Players Association the same rights as the unions in the other major sports. Congress specifically stated that the exemption was still intact with respect to relocation, the reserve clause, the minor leagues, and broadcasting contracts. This Act also had the effect of writing the antitrust exemption into law, ensuring that a full repeal will only come from Congress, and not the Supreme Court.
Every hitter likes fastballs, just like everybody likes ice cream. But you don't like it when someone's stuffing it into you by the gallon. That's what it feels like when Nolan Ryan's thrown balls by you. ~Reggie Jackson
Good point, exemption granted by SCOTUS but enshrined by Congress
Though the Court wasn’t going to reverse course anyway.
It’s ironic that the “Curt Flood Act” removed the antitrust exemption w/r/t big league player contracts, where it’s not an issue any more, but kept the exemption for minor leaguers, whom the reserve clause (which is the BPro use you link) still binds tightly.
Everybody's got a little light under the sun.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Nov 29, 2009 7:23 PM PST up reply actions
If I understand it correctly,
the Reserve Clause is still in effect, Curt Flood notwithstanding. What the court did was “sunset” the amount of time a team could control the rights to the player therefor creating free agency after a specified time. PT is probably well versed on the actual ruling and its implications. The anti trust exemption has been challenged three time in whole or in part and has stood each time. In actuality, Flood lost his case before the Court.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
I don't think that's right
Player control at the big league level is entirely dictated by the terms of the CBA. If players and owners agreed, players could be made free agents after one year and every single year thereafter, as Charlie Finley suggested. Flood did lose in court, but his contention that the reserve clause was subject to collective bargaining was vetted by arbitrators and became subject to negotiation shortly thereafter.
Everybody's got a little light under the sun.
by FreeSeatUpgrade on Nov 29, 2009 7:30 PM PST up reply actions
I think you're right....
Though they won the case, MLB ended up losing in arbitration.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
I think this basically comes down to a
Who is what land more important to?
I’m sure some of the Territory we control could help them increase productivity from their rotation.
Give them some of our land in exchange for theirs!
Fuck you Bob Geren
I blame Al Davis
If the city hadn’t gotten so royally F’d with Mount Davis, it might have been a bit more excited at the prospect of working with the A’s on a new stadium deal.
Also, the A’s were so screwed in the deal to bring Da Raidas! back into town (kicked out of their offices for one, forced to play a home stand in a minor league park) that they weren’t too happy with the city officials. Mind this was with past ownership in place, but don’t discount the ill-will between the City of Oakland and the Athletics franchise dating back to the Raiders return.
"I was right and you were wrong." - Ray Fosse
Oakland is not a pipe dream.
They’re running behind, but have a fairly short window—say, the next six months—to pull this one out of the fire. Their chances of keeping the A’s are the best they’ve been since Robert Bobb was in town.
Territory rights have nothing to do with it. Because of the failure of Fremont, Oakland has a new opportunity to offer the A’s a better deal than San Jose is offering. I hope they don’t screw it up.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
I agree
Let’s see what comes of the Oakland groups plan. Matier and Ross today had a blurb about 4 potential sites. If they can make it more attractive, it is still possible. I just hope the City of Oaktown doesn’t give up more than it should to make it happen.
Yeah, they're basically rehashing the same ones the A's turned down before
Oakland may not be a pipe dream, but they’re only a step above one. Realistically, Oakland doesn’t really stand much of a chance. Just too many things going against it and worse, too many things going San Jose’s way.
CuttheMullet, from "The Thread":
"Whenever I’m about to do something, I think "would an idiot do that?" and if they would, I do not do that thing."
...really?
Is that what Mattier & Ross called the site “just a little north of the coliseum, but on the other side of the Nimitz”?
For some reason, they labeled that as the Howard Terminal Pier, but that’s north of the Embarcadero and is already another site that they listed.
If you’re looking for sites on the west side of the Nimitz, you have to keep going until you get into the Estuary at the Tidewater Ave area or the Owens-Brockway glass plant. Either of those sites could field a ballpark.
In fact, I’m not sure why I’d never considered the Tidewater. The whole area is getting rezoned mixed-use for the Central Estuary Specific Plan (per direction from city council on approval of funding to conduct the specific plan. Kinda reverse engineering, but wev), and there’s more acreage below Tidewater than there is at Owens Brockway. You could also put the park right up against the waterfront.
Still, High St. is a worse mess than Fruitvale and is less accessible from the freeway. But from a Lew Wolff perspective, there’s plenty of room for residential development and it’ll be zoned for it, too.
oh, and the property owners in the Tidewater would be very pre-disposed towards selling/developing
The majority of it is already owned by a development company working in tandem with Carlos Plazola, a local devleoper/green builder/former political aide to De La Fuente/mover-and-shaker.
That is how I read it
meaning yes to this:
Is that what Mattier & Ross called the site "just a little north of the coliseum, but on the other side of the Nimitz"?
It’s in the neighborhood anyway.
I like the OFD site most of all. Let’s see how it all plays out.
interesting...
I’d love to get some clarification from someone in the know.
If a waterfront park somewhere in the central estuary ended up as the primary site, be it at Owens-Brockway or in the Tidewater, I’d be so freaking thrilled. Like, I’d drop out of school and take up advocacy for the site full-time.
Don't get too excited
Supposedly these “Howard” sites are there to make the search appear thorough. OFD has always been the preferred site.
I thought
- I had read something about how the Giants in ‘92 or whenever were planning a move to Santa Clara county had been provided the plan of getting the South bay when the official move happened. The move never materialized, BUT they still kept the territory. I was under the impression it was never fought against, so nobody made anything of it at the time. Is illegal if all stipulations of the original contract for a move didn’t occur, yes? Hell, SF already has the peninsula, which has a ton more monetary value than the East bay.
"Yeah, all I could find was Triple-Sec and rootbeer...What?! You mean you had tequila the whole time?!"
It's really a moot point...
As TR’s are an artifice specific to the internal workings of MLB. In other words, they live and breathe at the discretion of Selig subject to endorsement by 75% of the ownership.
This has never really been about contract law, other than the contract all the owners entered into when they bought into MLB. And that contract is as about iron clad as contracts can get when one considers MLB’s anti trust exemption. The bottom line is this; If it’s financially beneficial to the other owners for the A’s to be in SJ, then the A’s will be in SJ very soon.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Ask Alex: Can Jose Reyes repeat as NL batting champ?
- U.S. Cellular Field: Home of the Chicago Cubs?
- MLB Fan Cave candidate explains the stories behind his 30 MLB mascot tattoos
- Kate Upton’s new MLB 2K12 ad is really something
- Five tips for Showtime’s second season of ‘The Franchise,’ featuring the Miami Marlins
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
