Mayor Reed asks MLB to drop Giants territorial rights to SJ
by athletics68 on Apr 3, 2009 12:32 PM PDT
Email
PrintThings just keep coming up with the A's stadium hunt.
http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2009/03/30/daily89.html
Chuck Reed, mayor of San Jose, has put on the agenda for the city council to vote to allow him to officially request that MLB drop the Giants territorial rights to San Jose since the city got no say in the establishment of those rights. This request appears to be part of a package of moves geared toward an eventual A's stadium in San Jose.
EDIT: Santa Clara County is also getting in on the fun now and is planning to issue a similar demand to MLB to drop the Giants rights to the county or at the very least open them up to being shared by both clubs.
81 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It's easy to see...
…how worried/territorial/whatever the Giants are trying to be by buying part of the San Jose Giants yesterday.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
well it's not often a city has a chance to add a professional sports team.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
This is basically they're last chance
It’s the A’s or nothing. If the A’s leave, the Giants will block any other team from coming in. If the A’s move elsewhere in the bay area, the A’s & Giants will block another team coming in.
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."
Not just the city...
Santa Clara County is getting in on this too moving to pass a similar request of MLB to drop the Giants territorial rights to the south bay.
Not one to spread rumors....
But Tony Soprano was invited to a luncheon with the mayor.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
Now we know
why Wolff told Dellums and Co. to take a hike. This has been in the works for a while.
it's kinda hard for me
to take Selig’s “ballpark search committee” seriously while groundwork is simultaneously being laid in a by multiple authorities working in tandem to pave the way to San Jose. How do they expect anyone to believe they are actually giving full consideration to every plausible stadium site “within the A’s territory”? Though, considering this is Selig we’re talking about, I suppose he doesn’t give a damn whether or not I think the committee is a show trial.
Now that the dominoes are starting to fall, I expect things to get wrapped up far more quickly than the Fremont quagmire.
One that as we all know is easily solved
Simple vote of the owners and the Giants lose the rights. All Selig needs is the votes and to get them all he needs to do is convince the owners a healthy A’s is in their best interests… which shouldn’t be hard since it will save them money and the leaders of the south bay have just made it very clear they’re on board with the A’s coming south. The vote will likely be 29-1.
The showing of the money savings is key, but it's gotta be a net positive including the Giants
If it’s just the A’s gaining at the Giants’ expense then that won’t likely fly.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Apr 3, 2009 6:40 PM PDT up reply actions
Revenue sharing.
It will be 29 other teams with a net positive. Only one with a negative. Easy enough to reconcile with to boot. The market was originally divided with the South Bay being given over to the A’s. This will simply be a “market correction”.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
They'll probably get a pay-off.
I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone - the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.
~George Gallup
Only problem is...
…once you start opening up previously claimed territory, all bets are off. The Giants can make a strong case that the reason they were able to open the new ballpark was because of money from Silicon Valley, money that will now head south to San Jose. I don’t think there’s any question that the Giants stand to lose a huge amount of revenue should the A’s build a ballpark in Santa Clara County.
I don’t think it’s a done deal. Selig has proven himself to be fairly ineffectual and not a particularly bright bulb, and the Giants have some really good legal minds at work here.
Slippery slope arguments are only made when people run out of real argumets to make.
There are two problems with your argument.
1) But what if? is not an argument. Do you honestly think the owners would ever approve the Royals moving to New York City? Ha! What if a meteor strikes the Giants stadium and the MLB decides to contract them.
2)The MLB ALREADY opened up another teams territory when it gave Washington DC to the Nationals and the world didn’t end like the Giants say it will if the A’s get San Jose. DC, as with San Jose are special cases where the territory was tacked on to a greedy team who really had no business getting it in the first place and the city’s asked to have the rights reversed. The Giants must be the only team in American sports that are afraid their competitors will move FURTHER AWAY! San Jose being Giants territory is so ludicrus it’s not even funny.
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 Apr 4, 2009 12:22 AM PDT up reply actions
I do think owners would eventually approve the Royals moving to NYC
NYC is easily big enough to support three healthy teams, and KC isn’t big enough to support even one without revenue sharing
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Apr 4, 2009 6:19 AM PDT up reply actions
I'd also suggest that an existing team
would fair much better relocating to NYC then an expansion team at this point since they’d bring part of their existing fan base with them and they wouldn’t have to rely entirely on stealing away the poor (economically speaking) Yankees and Mets fans (have you seen their ticket prices, insane!).
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."
The pricing out of real fans in NYC gives more momentum to the political
support for a third team. It’s now dominated by the super-rich and corporates.
You could bribe the Mets and Yankees by giving them a disproportionnate share of the savings on revenue sharing. I guess you could also give them a break on the luxury tax, but I don’t think the other AL East teams would go along with that, nor would the Mets.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Apr 5, 2009 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions
Sounds good in theory
The cost of building anything in the tri-state area is prohibitively expensive. Even if a team were to go to Newark, the cost of a ballpark would be upwards of $600 million. Public officials have gone to the well one too many times to finance the Yankees/Mets/Giants-Jets new stadia, plus the Prudential Center. Some large portion would have to be privately derived. And if that’s the case, the team owner would have to get the back by – that’s right – having high ticket prices. A team would have one real ally there – Cablevision, who’d like baseball on MSG.
While many teams could consider being the third team in that market, there’s little reason to think they’d be altruistic enough to be the “discount MLB team” in the area.
I don't think they'd necessarily have to be the cheap team
so much as be the “cheap” team. As long as their prices are lower than the other two, they become the more affordable team to watch for all unaffiliated fans. There’s no reason for a third team in the area to be able to price themselves in the Met’s/Yankee’s price range anyway. They’d certainly not have the $2 ticket days or anything of the sort, just offer the best deal.
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."
So if you're a team looking to move
And you survey the market and see that the Mets and Yankees have the established fanbase, the lion’s share of corporate money, legacy, and a fierce need to compete because of new ballparks to pay for, how much of a risk is it to spend significant private funds to compete there?
Just because the market is there in potential doesn’t mean it will respond in reality. That goes for both the team and baseball consumers. Besides, why on earth would MLB allow a team in whose business model was not predicated on maximizing profit?
Oh there's absolutely NO way in hell a 3rd team ever goes into NY
I was simply basing everything on the assumption that IF there were a team, only an established team could ever have a hope of competing in the market. Somehow we wound up off on tangent of that. I will say though, that while NY is nearly impossible to get aided funding, Jersey might in order to break away from NY. But no, MLB, being the greedy collective they are, would only allow a third team in the market if somehow they needed a way to break up a competitive imbalance that was killing the rest of the league’s ability to turn a profit.
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."
Some were talking about an expansion team in Brooklyn at one time, but...
…yeah, I don’t see that happening either.
I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone - the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.
~George Gallup
to tack on to threepwood's rebuttal
The A’s would not be moving into another market, unlike a Royals to NYC move. They would still be playing in the same metro area, on the same media outlets and competing for the same fans.
myspace music
Selig ineffectual?
Since when? Everything he does ends up succeeding. The guy may come across as a buffoon, but he is not incompetent. Far from it.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer
Not sure I'd say that about
“The All-Star Game – now it counts for something!!!” when best record should, IMO, determine home field advantage for the WS.
But I do support interleague play (in much moderation) and I don’t think he’s personally responsible for one of things I most dislike, which is the unbalanced schedule.
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
Having an all-star game midseason has always been
a huge mistake. The fact Selig has tried to spice it up is not a failing of his.
Because two wrongs make a right?
Somehow I don’t feel that the Nationals’ required representative should have a chance to impact home field advantage for the World Series.
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
Not even if it's Ryan Langerhans?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Apr 5, 2009 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions
You should go to Fenway Park
He plays there for the A’s sometimes.
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
So does he.
I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone - the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.
~George Gallup
I'd rather have it in the middle of the year than at the end like the Pro Bowl
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
My preference would be middle of the year,
all players selected by managers/coaches, counts for nothing.
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
I think all players and coaches should be selected by me.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Apr 5, 2009 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions
That's fine, so long as
you are selected by AN’s moderators.
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
Agree that Selig should not be underestimated.
Actually, I believe that’s part of his plan, to make it sound probably unnecessarily sinister. He wants you to underestimate him. Ever notice that he’s usually wearing frumpy clothes for public consumption, yet when he’s doing things like testifying in front of congress he’s wearing a crisp dark suit with a pressed white shirt and a red power tie? This guy knows image and what works for his targeted audience at any given moment.
I know that I make fun of him, too, but there’s more there than he wants people to think.
I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone - the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.
~George Gallup
Of course it's a show trial, Selig's a car salesman, and...
…has no qualms about doing the dog-and-pony show and saying what he needs to say with a straight face. It’s quite possible that he’s doing this to cover his ass so he can point to his investigation and claim he exhausted all other options.
I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone - the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.
~George Gallup
it’s kind of hard for me to take Selig’s “ballpark search committee” seriously
fixed
by GreenNGoldSooner on Apr 4, 2009 7:55 AM PDT up reply actions
hang on...
it’s kind of hard for me to take Selig’s "ballpark search committee" seriously
fixed
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 awesome.
It’s great that they are making progress with a city/county that actually wants an MLB team. This is how I imagined the site search should have gone in the first place. Hopefully this works out.
What about Barry?
"Barry who?" Forst said, and I felt like I was in the middle of a knock-knock joke.
+1
Once the A’s move to SJ we own the division and Bay Area besbol.
by 33SwisherSweet on Apr 3, 2009 4:34 PM PDT up reply actions
Well LA - Orange County, Seattle and Dallas - Ft Worth aren't exactly tiny markets.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Apr 3, 2009 6:41 PM PDT up reply actions
It is promising that SJ and SCC's leaders are involved and for it...
And I think the territorial rights thing will be worked out in short order with them in the mix.
Not sure this is the best way for San Jose to get what they want.
Vertigo, as usual, summarizes why nicely on his blog:
Again, just like with the Dellums letter to Selig, I have to ask if this is the most effective way to deal with the T-rights problem. It could be said that Dellums got some traction by getting the blue ribbon committee to evaluate Oakland (cynics like me would say that traction is very slight). A city resolution doesn’t carry much weight unless it comes with a plan, or least a proper leadup to a plan. That’s definitely what the City is putting together, but we’re still around two months from seeing it.
This might be more of an indicator that it’s time for MLB to take the negotiating reins from Lew Wolff, who would take more of Samson/Loria-in-the-background role.
"PECOTA can pretty much kiss my ass."-Nico
This has nothing to do with the MLB taking over negotiation from Lew Wolff.
In fact, given the blanket order that Wolff gave San Jose, I think Wolff might be the coordinator behind this.
This is all a giant propaganda campaign to convince the other 28 owners to vote for against the right.
The Giants suddenly found “religion” about the San Jose Giants and their merchandise over the Last few days and (in my opinion) floated a bogus story about Wolff almost being fired to discredit him, so now Wolff is striking back.
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 Apr 3, 2009 5:36 PM PDT up reply actions
What I found really funny
Was the idea that Wolff could be “fired”. How does one “fire” the part owner of the team? He owns 10% of the team.
You buy him out. Companies fire partners all the time.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Apr 3, 2009 6:42 PM PDT up reply actions
It's more being fired as the Managing Partner
than being removed as an owner. They can’t force him to sell his stake in the club, but since he only has 10% stake in the club, he could very well be removed as a manager.
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."
by DMOAS on Apr 3, 2009 8:37 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Ya but I doubt he wants the 10% stake without any say in management
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Apr 4, 2009 6:19 AM PDT up reply actions
Depends on the profits and what gets offered to him in the way of a buyout
but all things being equal you’re probably right.
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."
All things being equal, Math would be really simple
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
??
floated a bogus story about Wolff almost being fired to discredit him
link, please.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
Link and reasoning.
I feel it is bogus and probably floated by someone to discredit Wolff because:
1)Like they said above, you don’t “fire” a 10% owner of the team. Especially one who really hasn’t done that bad of a job.
2)Companies/brokers float stories like this all the time to discredit rivals or cause the stocks of companies to drop. Given Wolff’s connections to Selig and San Jose, if Wolff looses credibility with the owners, so does any chance of the A’s going to San Jose. The Giants (and maybe Oakland boosters) have motive to float a story like this.
3)Wolff is one of the biggest developers and booster of San Jose there has been int he last 50 years. The only reason you would want Wolff to be in charge of getting a new stadium is if you wanted the A’s to move to San Jose. Now it looks more likely then ever the A’s are going to San Jose (as measured by the Giant’s recent freakouts). Uncle Lew has DONE HIS JOB! You don’t fire someone for that.
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 Apr 3, 2009 10:53 PM PDT up reply actions
Well that article was suspect the moment I read that they think the majority owner of the A's is Don Fisher
Newsflash to the author, the majority owner of the A’s is not Don Fisher, it’s John Fisher, Don’s son. Don is no more in involved in the ownership of the team than you or I are. If they can’t even get basic info like that right the rest of the article is likely equally incorrect.
All it really was was a blog-type post with no actual substance to it
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
Well, it's the Examiner.
I’ve never trusted anything they write. Their slants are almost always reactionary, provincial and sensationalistic. They’re as bad a rag as the Boston Herald, and made in the same mold to boot.
It's actually not the San Francisco Examiner
It’s more of a nationwide website with writers in specific areas talking about whatever they want, near as I can figure. This place started up in April 2008.
http://www.examiner.com/about_examiner/
The newspaper is sfexaminer.com
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
More than a little late, but here's the link to the original blog post
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail?blogid=95&entry_id=38024
Zennie Abraham can’t spell worth a damn, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he knows nothing. Of course it doesn’t mean he’s right either. He’s a former columnist for the Montclarion and is mobbed up w/ Elihu Harris, among other things.
"I'm a lexicon devil with a battered brain."--Darby Crash
we all love the A's
and i respect all of you, really … but it pains me to read so many posts for a move to SJ.
I hope we can all just let all this business play itself out … and hopefully all of us A’s fans can enjoy what’s going on on the diamond. Because this move stuff is killing this A’s fan.
Lets go A’s!
by GrewUpAtTheColiseum on Apr 3, 2009 8:52 PM PDT reply actions
Most people are only "for" it, I think, because...
…it’s the best option that seems actually doable. Other doable options involve moving out of state.
I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone - the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.
~George Gallup
Not me
I’m for it because I grew up in San Jose and want to see it get out of San Francisco’s shadow and become a world class city.
Getting an A’s ballpark downtown near highspeed/BART/caltrans/literail and the national name recognition and credibility it would bring is the first step in that direction.
Before I die I want two San Franciscans to talk about going to “the city” and get on HSR to go to San Jose.
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 Apr 4, 2009 12:26 AM PDT up reply actions
And deservedly so. San Jose is easily the most important city in the SF Bay Area.
In fact they should get the Bay renamed.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Apr 4, 2009 6:21 AM PDT up reply actions
How do you think Kansas City feels?
We stole their team and they were left with the fugly Royals. Now they here the Athletics are moving on again. Face it, this team plays fast and loose with city hearts.
"No matter what I talk about, I always get back to baseball." - Connie Mack
Even the San Jose city buses are getting into the act*:
*not really.
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
Seems only fair to give the Oaklanders equal access.
Remember kids — no hotlinking!
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Apr 4, 2009 7:14 AM PDT up reply actions
If they change their colors to pink, red, and yellow...
…I’m not buying a new cap!
by GreenNGoldSooner on Apr 4, 2009 7:57 AM PDT up reply actions
Ideally, the two teams should share the whole area the same way other two-team markets do.
I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone - the chances that all the functions of an individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity.
~George Gallup
It could be that they'll share the area, as they should be
But I suspect what is more likely is that certain A’s territories that currently exist will become Giants territories in a swap. Whether Oakland is included remains to be seen.
I nominate:
Now it can truly be The Land of the Giants.
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus
by The Dogfather on Apr 6, 2009 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Doesn't really matter
The only thing T-Rights are for is building stadiums. They are pretty much an outdated concept from the 1900’s when the only way to see your team was to actually go to the stadium, so back then it made sense to keep teams as far apart as possible.
Now days, since teams get most of their revenue from TV contracts covering multiple states, they just don’t matter as much anymore. That’s why, even thought he Angels play in Anaheim, they changed their name to the LA Angels of Anaheim. Since their games are broadcast all over SoCal they make just as much money (if not more) then they would if they went to LA.
Once the A’s move to San Jose it wont really matter who owns what for another 30 years or so.
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 Apr 6, 2009 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
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.
