Oakland too liberal for Pro Athletes?

Boston, NY, LA, Chicago, SF, etc… Not conservative bastions.

Our small market is the problem. Also, hardly any players actually live in Oakland. They live in Danville, WC, Pleasanton, Blackhawk, etc.

But while most cities are liberal, none come close to the Bay Area. We are the proverbial hotbed.

Also, while most players live outside the immediate area of the city ballpark (in some cases the park is in the burbs) they play for, represent the fans of the area. They meet the fans at gatherings etc, hear of them on the news when living in the area.

I just have always had (perhaps irrationally) a suspicion this does come into play, especially with baseball, and particularly since the whole moneyball misperception by most.

But then again, i suppose i’m giving these guys too much credit for thinking much about political things at all. Money, playing time, winning, park vibe. That’s what they want.

than anything to do with politics. Most pro athletes don’t even live within the city limits if they’re signing long-term deals, buying a house, etc. At least, I know that’s true of Chicago. I’d imagine it’s true of most major metropolitan areas.

in a player’s choice of team. I would like to see some data from you that confirm your general belief that athletes are as you put it: “.. more religious than average, conservative, not all that intellectual, homophobic..”

And we are not in a small market.

surely it must apply equally to the Giants.

…had a choice between two teams with the exact same record, same chance of winning for all intents and purposes, and the teams he was looking at were in Oakland and KC (try not to associate KC with their losing for this exercise) I have a hard time believing the majority (doesn’t have to be a huge majority to make my point) wouldn’t choose KC, and not just for the cheaper houses. Everything else equal guys choose where they feel they fit in more.

Would it help if i used St Louis instead?

Also, look how tough it is to get a ballpark built with public money in the Bay Area. Think that doesn’t somehow relate to how other places are more gung ho for sports while the bay is pretty dang liberal and of a mind that money should go elsewhere?

I know the Northwest US is the least religious part of the country. You can google it if you want. The Bay Area cannot be too far behind in secular thinking. KC, St Louis etc? They’re all WAY more conservative and religious.

As for the homophobic and macho line, that’s most jocks, regardless of where they’re from. You know it’s true too, if you’ve met a lot of these guys.

I think it’s kind of naive to think many of these guys aren’t the same pricks you knew and hated in high school They are often jerks, sorry. They’ve been coddled for most of their lives. They picked on the nerds, etc.

I’m kind of surprised so many think it doesn’t play at least SOME part.

Iglew. I think it does affect the Gnats. Only team with a privately built park. FA’s turn them down (LaRoche.)

and totally not the horrible national image, the crappy stadium, the low attendance, and the reputation for cheapness that the organization has.

…and all of those things you mentioned have no connection at all (at least in conservative players’ minds) to good intentioned/awful outcome liberal policies running Oakland into the ground, not getting a new park (see my previous post,) fan flakiness/not a baseball town, and them having to be “cheap” largely due to other said issues.

It all connects. And the Moneyball misunderstanding…the thinking that “Beane and those guys in Oakland think they’re better than us” stuff….hard to think it doesn’t play some part.

For a very religious man i’d say there almost would likely be a bias away from cities and areas that are known to be more open to secular thinking, places that, like the bay, were more pro choice than pro life. Again, only if the player had the choice.

Of course this doesn’t and shouldn’t stop a team anywhere from finding a way to win.

Is this post offensive to some? If so i guess i’m getting off on the wrong foot here. Sorry ‘bout that. I just have a pretty strong gut feeling on this. (By the way, i love that The A’s are stats oriented, and prefer they start there and mix in “instinct,” like i’m using here. That said, not all things can be quantified. Gut is sometimes right.)

And as i said in an earlier post, perhaps i’m giving these guys too much credit for thinking along any of these lines in the first place.

If only we’d bash some gays. Maybe then we’d get a world championship!

and btw, I wouldn’t expect much slack when putting up a fanpost for your first active AN day. Jump into some comment threads, introduce yourself. Fanposts are just asking for trouble.

But first, come on cityplANner.

I consider my “liberal cred” to be pretty impressive. I just also think after 40+ years of failed attempt after failed attempt it’s become more than “these things need more time.” Could it be…gasp…..that some of the left, of which i’m included, just doesn’t realize much of what they push doesn’t work? Gasp.

If you want to oversimplify me that way, go ahead, i guess.

I speak of this because i’m OF it, i know it…all too well. From working in childcare and being around schools and how identity politics stymies most things there. From being of ultra liberal parents and grandparents. From sensing that due to PC thinking we can’t see often we’re trying to give people fish instead of teaching them to fish.

I really find it sad you instinctually read into it what you did. Could it be some of us agree with what you want for the country and world, but sincerely disagree with how to do it? And that maybe, just maybe some liberal policies ARE well intentioned/awful outcomed?

Guess i’ll get banned/shunned now.

Sigh. Tough to be liberal yet practical, so old school bay area liberal that i feel i see the faults of it that many who ironically come from less liberal backgrounds need, in their development, to go through before seeing.

If it’s not what i say running Oakland into the ground, what is it?

Come on, don’t be shy, tell us what you really think! So you’re saying that you really, really, really love the Sheets signing and how Raj Davis looks with his socks pulled up? I’m kidding.

Seriously, if I were to ascribe an “Oakland effect” on potential players coming here or wanting to, it’d be more a function of the stadium, the dimensions, the sixteen fields worth of foul ground, the idea that the ball doesn’t carry after sundown and all the games are at night, and so on along those lines. If it were me, particularly as a hitter and most specifically a slugger-type, it’d be down to what happens on this particular field and between those particular chalk lines (never mind the lines for dollar dogs, that’s another fanpost entirely) and how that might affect my numbers/team’s chances to win with me slugging those big numbers/potential $ I might get subsequently if/when (prolly when) they deal me elsewhere and I sign a longterm deal.

Of course it cuts both ways, and there are more than likely pitchers who’d relish the chance to play here, given the effects of everything I just listed on the activities on the other side of the ball. Maybe Ben Sheets was one of those people, dunno but his quick signing seems to bear out that idea somewhat, at least for this week.

And all this, from arguably the most conspiratorial, why-does-everyone-loathe-Oakland-it-must-be-cuz-they-hate-poor-and-darker-skinned-people guy on AN, so go figure.

I don’t think this matters at all. Oakland has a long legacy of championship caliber teams, and I don’t think athletes would turn down any chance of winning/playing pro/making bank just because they have this assumption that the bay area leans too far left.

…really respect the posters here.

Which is why, despite trying to get some sleep, my conscious made me come back at this hour.

Cityplanner. Could it be your overgeneralized “oooooh, us evil awful liberals” comment prompted my admittedly generalized ones (all we can really do with these issues here, and now i realize NOT do here?) Just saying. It was your seemingly to me kneejerk reaction that really got me going, putting that into my mouth.

And Emporer nobody, although none of you know me, I’m well versed in the cool night air, foul ground, low attendance, i.e. all the things us serious A’s fans have hashed and rehashed.

My goal was to think out of the box. My goal was to propose that maybe, just maybe there is something else under the surface going on (as there truly is in almost all aspects of life.)

To me that is the FAR more interesting “juice” going on. Anyone can state the agreed upon and obvious.

To recap. In most cases i’d agree with Condition Oakland here. Usually it likely doesn’t matter and even with the few players it might matter with, still the perfect conditions of FA, available teams etc would have to come up.

Sorry for “going here.” Sorry for being snippy. I wish the simple mentioning of these things didn’t create such a stir. If i reacted like this to the myriad things people say that indirectly bug me or i disagree with…..well. I’ll not go on with this.

I love Paul Thomas for his “Data from Startrek” -like adherence to pure objectivity. Do i think he lacks a bit of “feel?” Absolutely. But I love him and read him anyway.

I love Nico’s way of keeping things light while knowing when and where to make solid points. (TWSS. And i say that more in a The Office kind of way, slightly mocking the very use, just so you know.) And don’t forget Cindy!!

I love Blez for starting all this.

I’m happy for Baseballgirl and her fiance. That’s simply a great love story and i’m envious. A girlfriend who loves the A’s that much? Dang, lucky guy.

I love how this site is seen as the bellweather for the rest of the SB nation of blogs, and it’s more than deserving.

I just thought (or failed to think it wouldn’t be cool) that more people would be into the esoteric nature of my premise. To me it’s a clearly legit question. Maybe players (and people in general) don’t have these thoughts/biases on the surface, but ALL OF US guide our lives from subconscious factors related to our worldviews.

But i guess not only do most of you not see it that way, but the whole question seemed to irk. And that before i even started “going there.” So for that i’m sorry for going here.

I like the Sheets signing because even if he falls apart it’s only one year and meanwhile it moves the SP chain down a notch which IMO helps everyone. If he’s good he’s usually very good. And sure, if we’re not, he’s gone for more prospects, which i believe need to flood the system to really get solid return from.

I also like the Sheets signing as it could win us the division. Seriously, i realize the if’s are big, but Sheets, Duke, Anderson isn’t a bad place to start.

I think Barton is going to really hit this year, only in a Barton way of course, but still. Gap power and high OBP with solid D isn’t that bad.

I’m a bit worried the bullpen won’t be as dominant, ’cause ’pens often go up and down from year to year. But it does seem, really seem like it will stay great. I just always worry when EVERYONE assumes something will be great.

(another reason i like the Sheets signing. The SP wasn’t all that since much of the great team pitching last year was due to the ’pen.)

I’m not sold on Rajai being as good as he was last year, and fear if he gets moved to 4th outfielder he’ll, like most players, suffer from lack of consistent playing time (and we’ll lose all his trade value-have to think Beane looked into moving him while supposedly his value was high, but few around the league are sure with Raj either. Agree with many who see his outfield routes to the ball as less than ideal, but like the guy.)

I’m of a mind that Sweeney will develop more power, but never as much as his frame suggests. I hope Taylor isn’t like that since he has a balanced swing. Less worried about him since his pure size and strength should eventually see the ball with that swing leave the yard anyway.

I really like Carter’s demeanor. Mellow but focused and confident without lame bravado. Taylor is different kid. Very cerebral and outgoing.

Prospects are just that, but something about the ebb and flow of them working out or not, along with these guys’ talent and credentials makes me think at least one of them (not just Carter and Taylor) will work out to be a star. I think Beane is about to shed at least partially, his reputation of not finding young hitters (and of course the two with the best shots he traded for, as has been said.)

Damn. Go A’s!!! Cannot wait for this primer season leading us into the future where the kids have gotten their feet wet.

I live in a city of about 60,000 on the East Coast- very like a much smaller version of Oakland. Like Oakland, we are a blue collar working class city with a mixture of whites, blacks and a growing latino population. People in the nearby bigger city look down upon us as an undesirable place to live and they refer to the smaller city in negative terms, just like the SF people do of Oakland. I’ve never lived in Oakland but have visited a few dozen times and I think it’s a great place. Sure it has issues (the politics are absolutey hysterical) but what city doesn’t? As for being too liberal- I can’t imagine that most Athletes care much about that as long as the fans support the team.

Occam’s razor, man. It’s not that we are too liberal, the players too conservative, or the city riddled with crime, etc. It’s that we have earned a reputation for not going after high-priced FAs. That, in turn, means that player agents don’t go seeking out the A’s when they are looking for the maximum pay day for their clients.

Scutaro and others spurning us for slightly worse contracts is really a result of having had poor teams over the last 3 years. While this year there is now legitimate excitement, the stark truth is that BBG’s GM post provide all the data we need to show why many FA won’t give us the light of day: the Oakland Athletics won’t overpay for your services.

While in the current system and in our current park, or thrift is necessary, I hope that we will once again be a destination team for ALL players to want to come. It’s just not going to happen anytime in the near future.

Ballplayers are going to go where they get paid and where they think they have the best chance to win.

As far as the politics of towns someone mentioned Kansas City and St. Louis being much more conservative than Oakland. Uh…no those are both Democratic bastions and the only reason Missouri has a Democratic Governor and a Dem Senator.

I’m just curious when the A’s were winning titles and had the highest payroll in baseball do you think any of the players cared about the politics of the bay area?

didn’t he say SF was too dirty? I think I recall that. I love SF but parts of it are dirty as hell – and I don’t mean in the fun way neither!!

That was fun to read haha

BTW, back around 1985, I was in the middle of doing time in oklahoma (my dad was shipped out there when GM closed down the plant in fremont) and I was with my mom at a baseball card show where Red Schoendienst was signing. When we got to Red, he asked us where we were from. I said SF, and without missing a beat, he said in a very strong southern drawl “there are only two things that come from there; fruits and nuts”. Now, you gotta know, my mom is the nicest person you will ever meet. She was even going to be a nun before she met my dad and got married. But, that PISSED her off. I thought she was going to jump over the table and take the very old man out. At the time, I just hustled my mom away from there, but after that, every time I think of it, it cracks me up. I can see the headlines on the next days papers. “Pissed Mom Kills HOF” hahahaha I still tease her about it.

This post was very engaging to me. I enjoyed it. Thick skin is simply necessary in order to have a conversation of any worth between people. Anyway, for what it’s worth, I think the thought process likely does exist because most? many? more-than-some? baseball players come from small town America, while most? many? more-than-some? fans by definition live in urban America. And it is an observable fact that the cultures in small town America and urban America are discernably different, maybe almost in contrast to one another. Like it or not, Oakland is the bad-ass public representation in the minds of many of the worst aspects of urban life (as well as perhaps Baltimore, Detroit, and Washington). It would be an interesting thread as to why, perhaps for Oakland it’s the Raiders, or the politics repreneted by San Francisco and Berkeley, and for Baltimore maybe it’s The Wire? I don’t know. However, I do I know it was and in many ways still is after 30 years a culture shock to live here in the flats of East Oakland when I was born and raised in a New Mexico small town in Fly-Over country.

I pretty much disagree with the premise and assumptions.

Oakland is a small market and… its Oakland. Oakland has had a smaller budget in recent years and cycles through players. Oakland has low attendance figures. The Coliseum suppresses offense.

Those are the reasons Free Agents don’t want to come here.

If politics were an issue in the way you think they are, the mid-west teams would dominate. Assigning your athlete traits as if they all go together is also pretty offensive…. might want to rethink future posts.

Then again most all actors seem to be atheist, liberal, completely unintellectual, metrosexual hippies (I don’t think this, but come on…) so that must be why they love Oakland.

When its against people you don’t like. This thread sucks.

To Iglew and Zonis, i appreciate the lesson taught me. Thanks.

To the rest of you: Nice to hear the topic got some ideas moving.

And without stating (because now i know not to) what i mean by the more controversial of my comments, I’ll just say try not to assume too much about me. Like most of us, I am a mixed bag politically (the comparison to Sean Hannity just hurt.) If you had a crystal ball and could see what i’ve been about and what i’ve done, you’d never say that Hannity line, or think many of the things i suppose some of you think from my most controversial of comments (i think you know the one. Can a liberal not think fellow libs are sometimes silly, blind? Why not? I get that some here are from Oakland. To them i apologize if i hit a chord. I worked there many years and love it on many levels. I really could and should have worded it more delicately, and i DO generalize too much. Need to work on that.)

I disagree NY is more liberal than the inner Bay Area. Guiliani couldn’t happen here. I don’t like anything about him other than one thing, but have to admit that one thing (SERIOUS crime reduction) helped everything else greatly. Maybe it’s because i’m from Berkeley and raised around the liberalist of the liberal, but there’s a level of liberalness that gets just silly to me, that isn’t grounded in reality. THAT’s what i was talking about. Uh oh…

Sorry….

I will keep it to baseball in any subsequent posts, i promise. I’m glad some actually had the courage to admit they too were intrigued by these ideas. I wish we all weren’t so sensitive, but understand that we are and that that is cool, and i was wrong to go here.

Go A’s!!

I learned my lesson. And i will start now, since there are things i’m tempted to reply to in Iglew and Arcman’s response here.

Seriously.