Does anyone remember these comments Selig made in 2001?
by Sweet Spot on Nov 8, 2010 4:15 PM PST
Email
Print
"I watched 32 years ago the Kansas City A's move to Oakland. They hurt the Giants badly. They never really did that well themselves. It was a horrible mistake."
(more after the jump)
The above quote is excerpted from a brief interview Selig gave to a local (DC or Maryland) broadcaster when he (Selig) was throwing out the first pitch at the 40th annual congressional baseball game in Bowie, MD in June of 2001.
Click her for link to youtube video
I tried to quickly transcribe the preamble to the above quote for better context:
Broadcaster lead in: "Bud Selig was asked if we in the nation's capital should give up hope after being without major league baseball for 30 years? Bud Selig says, don't give up hope."
And Selig responded by saying:
"No, you shouldn't give up hope. Absolutely not. I've said in the past and I'll say it again here, that I am very protective of existing franchises. I watched 32 years ago the Kansas City A's move to Oakland. They hurt the Giants badly. They never really did that well themselves. It was a horrible mistake. As an old history major, I'm not likely to repeat the mistakes of the past. However, every area stands on it's own two feet. Every area has it's own indigenous characteristics, and um, I want to say that I'm respect both the Northern Virginia and Washington DC groups for being as aggressive as they are, and they should continue to be."
I apologize if this comment has been hashed and rehashed here, but after reading Dave Newhouse's opinion piece in the Tribune over the weekend, I wanted to see if I could find any reference to when Selig actually called the A's move to Oakland a "horrible mistake". Yup. Selig said as much, and more. And after watching & listening to what Selig said back in 2001, I couldn't help but wonder if Selig is hoping to finally right what he considers to be the "horrible mistake" of the A's moving from KC to Oakland?
I've paid close attention to the A's ballpark situation, but until I heard those comments made by Selig I thought the A's had a chance in Oakland. And now I can't help but think that "the fix" has been in for many, many years.
36 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
No. This is not a pissing match about Oakland vs San Jose.
After reading Selig’s comments about being “very protective of existing franchises” and that he considers the A’s from KC to Oakland to have been a “horrible mistake”. I’m more concerned about the A’s landing somewhere much farther away from Oakland than San Jose.
Very unsettling.
"You spend a good piece of your life gripping a baseball and in the end it
turns out that it was the other way around all the time." ~~~ Jim Bouton
Really?
How do you figure?
"You spend a good piece of your life gripping a baseball and in the end it
turns out that it was the other way around all the time." ~~~ Jim Bouton
look back at jeffro's series on the stadium issue
I think it was last year but could have been longer ago. There was a well done piece about other markets that pretty much determined that splitting the SF-OAK-SJ market had much more potential than other alternatives (Portland, Vegas, etc.) in terms of population, media market size, corporations in the metro area, etc.
by MaineAthletic on Nov 8, 2010 7:44 PM PST up reply actions
Thanks
I will root around and look for jeffro’s Greener Grass episodes 1-9.
I figured Selig’s somewhat inflammatory statement must not have gone unnoticed at the time he made it, but I honestly don’t recall reading/hearing anything about it back in 2001 or even later?!? (Probably just not reading in the right places.)
Anyway, I read find jeffro’s series and read up. Thanks.
"You spend a good piece of your life gripping a baseball and in the end it
turns out that it was the other way around all the time." ~~~ Jim Bouton
Greener Grass
Greener Grass episodes 1-9. Read the first one about potential relocation markets. It explains my position.
Also, this quote from Bud Selig has been brought up several times. I think it is less relevant when compared to the fact that we are 9 years on from when it was spoken and nothing has changed.
Shortly after this quote was made, Steve Schott and Ken Hoffman proposed building a new stadium on the Ciseum Parking Lot, free land, and they put up $100M of their own money and asked for help in funding the rest. Since that time, the A’s have put forth several plans for staying in the Bay Area. Why, if there was somewhere better to go (and considering several potential markets put forth plans to lure the Marlins and/or the Expos) would they still be messing around with the Bay Area? If it was as easy as hiring a moving company and setting up shop in Portland/Charlotte/Las Vegas, and they would have the required revenues, they would have moved long ago.
by jeffro on Nov 8, 2010 9:19 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I think a 30,ooo seat stadium in Brooklyn would be there best move out of Nothern California.
Get a good Lawyer and Buy the old rights from the Dogers or Giants. In fact, the Giants should pay us to leave. With the NY population in a small staduim they could still double there yearly attendance. The big increase would be TV rights. The A’s could probably demand and get 50m a year after being established. around 20 times there current TV revenue. The A’s could have 100million dollar payrolls easy.
Now the Yankee’s and Mets would bitch but screw them. this would help out the competitive balance of baseball and skim off some of the ten’s of millions those teams have in excess which would be good for the game.
I would rather them stay in Northern Cal of course, but if they did move out, that would be one sweet spot to do it to and an almost garenteed sussuful spot.
"Gratuitous gesticulating together sounds even better"
I'm pretty sure there won't be three teams in any market, even New York's
Last of the Ninth - Photography
I believe that NY is the only market that actually could support three teams...
…and by support, I mean support them all well. However, I think it’ll be a cold day in hell before that ever happens.
Billy Beane... What have you done for me lately?
Hmmmmm.....
Maybe I’m waaay of base here but I think the Rays want out of town, big time. And I wonder if the Rays aren’t waiting to make their bid for relocation until after the decision is made on the fate of the A’s. If Selig opens the door for the A’s to move to San Jose, then the I anticipate the dominoes might begin to fall with regard to the Rays and perhaps other teams in the future.
I have read a couple of articles about the Rays which have speculated that the Rays would like to relocate to the NE, specifically to somewhere in NJ or CT whose territorial rights are currently claimed “owned” (?) by the Yankees and the Mets, whom I doubt would willingly allow another MLB franchise into their little Fifedom. So, it doesn’t seem too far fetched to think that if the A’s go to San Jose, then the Rays will be next in line making their case to MLB and the A’s will become exhibit number one when citing precedent.
"You spend a good piece of your life gripping a baseball and in the end it
turns out that it was the other way around all the time." ~~~ Jim Bouton
It's not the same scenario, though.
The A’s moving to SJ is a team staying within the same area, arbitrary “boundaries” notwithstanding. Key word: arbitrary.
Any team moving to NJ would be an outside team moving in. Significantly different scenario.
Billy Beane... What have you done for me lately?
Perhaps a different scenario leading up to the main dance
…but I think the crux of the argument (I’m talking about a court battle now) might be the fact of the arbitrariness (is that even a word?) of the “boundaries”, and how this arbitrariness is in fact, anti-competitive.
"You spend a good piece of your life gripping a baseball and in the end it
turns out that it was the other way around all the time." ~~~ Jim Bouton
That's where the anti-trust exemption comes into play.
MLB gets to have monopolistic territories and boundaries because of it.
Billy Beane... What have you done for me lately?
Exactly
And I don’t thinks it’s a stretch to think that another – perhaps stronger – challenge to the anti-trust exemption MLB currently enjoys may be in the cards, and the decision on the A’s may start that ball rolling, especially if the Rays really do want to relocate to the NE.
I can see the dominoes are in place, it’s just a matter of if and how they fall.
I think Selig’s impending retirement may come into play, too. And the current CBA is set to expire in December of 2011. That’s a lot of potential for change to occur over a relatively short amount of time.
"You spend a good piece of your life gripping a baseball and in the end it
turns out that it was the other way around all the time." ~~~ Jim Bouton
The anti-trust exemption is extremely valuable...
…to the teams and owners. Suing to remove it would be bad business… not unlike shooting oneself in the foot.
Personally, I believe it should be repealed, but I know this isn’t likely to happen.
Billy Beane... What have you done for me lately?
I'm sure they don't. they existed once though. thats a start.
“get a good lawyer” and mabey they figure out a way to make them exist or bring enough heat to make them comprimise something. Not saying the chances are good or what the heat could be, mabey 100-1, but with enough money and leverage, I’m sure bigger things than that have been broght back from the dead.
And its not like it wouldn’t be the absolute best way to return competitive balance to the game. New York could probably support four teams with 100 million dollar payrolls which would move two teams off the MLB revenue sharing tit. The Yankee’s and Mets wouldnt like it but around 25 other teams would as they would now have a better chance to compete and at the same time give away less money.
"Gratuitous gesticulating together sounds even better"
Bud's comment is correct and relevant only in a historical context... for 1968....
…this quote from Bud Selig has been brought up several times. I think it is less relevant when compared to the fact that we are 9 years on from when it was spoken and nothing has changed.
…for saying that the move never should have happened in the first place.
While historically correct, it is no longer relevant now, let alone 10 years ago, as it has long been a done deal. Fast forward to today and realities… and options… are far different. It can’t be undone so the only choice is to look forward and make the best decision(s) possible.
Billy Beane... What have you done for me lately?
Given that the man thinks Abner Doubleday invented baseball, we probably shouldnt take anything he says, especially from 10 years ago, that seriously.
He truly is the G.W. Bush of commissioners.
Somebody who is unpopular at the time, but 100 years later history may remember him more charitably?
Billy Beane... What have you done for me lately?
I wish I could dismiss Selig as a dim bulb, but I tend to see him as greedy, conniving, conspirator. And those are perhaps the kindest words I could use to describe him.
"You spend a good piece of your life gripping a baseball and in the end it
turns out that it was the other way around all the time." ~~~ Jim Bouton
In context... and regarding the A's move only... I completely agree with his comment.
The A’s move to Oakland was a mistake. The AL owners (NL had no vote at the time) were just getting Finley off their backs, more than anything else.
In the knowledge that I became an A’s fan because of it, I am glad it happened, but when looked at from a purely objective position it never should have happened.
Too bad Finley didn’t move them to Milwaukee… we might have been saved from Bud Selig.
Billy Beane... What have you done for me lately?
What everyone seems to be forgetting: Selig and Wolff are buddies
One way or another, I have to think Wolff’s going to get something that’s good for him.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Oh, I've never forgotten about the cozy relationship between Selig & Wolff
Regardless of how tight those two (Wolff & Selig) are, it won’t prevent other teams/owners from citing an A’s move to San Jose as precedent when making their case for relocation into somewhere where Yankees/Mets and Boston, too, have a stranglehold on the NE territory.
I can see the potential of another anti-trust lawsuit in the makings.
"You spend a good piece of your life gripping a baseball and in the end it
turns out that it was the other way around all the time." ~~~ Jim Bouton
I don't see how
A team moving 40 miles away is not the same as someone like Tampa Bay moving 1300 miles or so.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
The issue is becomes the anti-competitive nature...
…of the arbitrary “boundaries” and resulting territories that MLB “grants” to each team. Whether the team is moving 30 miles down the road into territory “owned” by another MLB franchise or the team is moving 1,400 miles north into territory “owned” by another couple of MLB franchises…the anti-competitive nature of the fact of the “territories” remains a constant.
"You spend a good piece of your life gripping a baseball and in the end it
turns out that it was the other way around all the time." ~~~ Jim Bouton
So who sues?
And what are the grounds? And then if the anti-trust exemption dissolves, what stops five teams from moving to NY?
by LoneStranger on Nov 9, 2010 10:01 AM PST up reply actions
In theory...
…nothing stops 5 NFL teams from moving to New York… except lack of facilities, and business owners usually recognize when enough is too much.
Billy Beane... What have you done for me lately?
It's a connundrum, isn't it?
I imagine the lawsuits could fly either way. If Selig allows the A’s to relocate to San Jose and the Giants try and block the move in court, I can see an anti-trust counter claim being made by the A’s. Or, if the A’s are not allowed to move to San Jose I can see a similar anti-trust claim being made by the A’s against MLB.
And especially if the A’s are allowed to move to San Jose – Selig having made some back room deal with the Giants and the A’s regarding the “territorial rights” issue – and then the Rays go on and are denied the permission to relocate to the NJ/CT area on the basis of some sort of "infringement of the “territorial rights” of the Mets & Yankees…well, can envision the Rays challenging the denial in court as an anti-trust matter.
Just because MLB enjoys an anti-trust exemption currently, doesn’t mean that exemption would would stand up to the type of challenge potentially unfolding here.
Obviously I could be way of the mark here, but I believe the potential for a huge federal legal battle is there. And whether or not this battle gets fought, may in no small part hinge on Selig’s decision regarding the A’s.
"You spend a good piece of your life gripping a baseball and in the end it
turns out that it was the other way around all the time." ~~~ Jim Bouton
No owner will challenge the Anti-Trust Exemption.
It’s the very thing that keeps teams from going where they want.
by LoneStranger on Nov 9, 2010 11:26 AM PST up reply actions
Any owner who "won" such a suit...
…would lose out in so many other ways.
Billy Beane... What have you done for me lately?
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
- Get a grip: Reds’ Todd Frazier loses bat, still connects for home run (Video)
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
