San Jose A's. Bet on it. It will be done.
Ok, then what?
Do we start over with brand new records and history? Do we suddenly treat Reggie Jackson's home runs and Rickey Henderson's stolen bases and the team's 20 game winning streak as if they only existed in some long distant... and irrelevant... past as we now treat Philadelphia and Kansas City records and history?
Even more important... Do the A's start over with ZERO World Series titles as some of us are prone to do with certain other teams? Will 1989 cease to be relevant? We just might find ourselves down 1-0 in World Series titles in the area... after so many years of having World Series titles as our biggest "In your face!" comeback. Do we really want to go there?
Or, do we make an exception because the move wasn't far away, and most of the fans are still the same and within driving distance? It's easy to ignore Philadelphia and Kansas City as if they didn't exist, because the geographic separation is so extreme. "Team" records being differentiated from "franchise" records, and all that jazz. Thing is, if we make the exception, why only a partial exception? Why not then include Philadelphia and Kansas City.
If we try to keep combined Oakland/San Jose stat histories, and when we appear on network television... only when we play the Yankees, of course... will the announcers and networks cooperate? Or, will Tim McCarver tell us that Dallas Braden has the team record with 14 wins by a San Jose A's pitcher?
Personally, it has always bothered me that the team gives such scant attention to the whole past. I don't expect going back to blue and white uniforms on a daily basis, but there should be a better happy medium. I'd like to see Lefty Grove's and Jimmy Foxx' numbers retired, as just one example. More visible promotion of the past. We have NINE World Series titles, not four. With the exeption of the Yankees, we have probably the most storied and historically interesting franchise history of any team in baseball. It deserves more attention.
Are you a "team" person, or a "franchise" person? I really don't think that trying to straddle parts of the two is workable. Pick one.
Footnote: In spite of this, I still support a move to San Jose. Not in my heart, but in my head. It's simply the best option for the A's in order to compete. But then, I'm a "franchise" person, so I treat all records and histories as relevant and equal (only differences being in eras and style of overall play)... all the way back to 1901.