Athletics Nation: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Spencer Hall's College Football Week 12 Alphabetical

Do You Know the Way to Fremont A's?

One thing you can say about the Athletics is that their offseasons are never, ever dull.  They don't sit around wringing their hands for news.

It appears like the inevitable will finally soon be announced.  The Oakland Athletics are going to be moving to Fremont, California. (can you believe they misspelled Lew Wolff's name?)

This will obviously disenfranchise many an Oakland resident, but ultimately, we all knew this was coming.  Many of us didn't want it to happen, but the truth is that Oakland has much greater problems to deal with than whether or not they can keep our Athletics.  On the grand scale of societal issues, placating a major league team was way down on the list with many thanks due to how Al Davis screwed the city.

Any way, I feel much the same way about this as I do about Ron Washington leaving.  A legacy will be lost, and likely a bit of soul along with it.  At the same time, the opportunities for the A's (don't know whether to call them the "Oakland" A's now or not) will be abundant in Fremont.  They should be able to draw quite a few businesses from the Silicon Valley just because of the team's proximity to those businesses now.  And we all know in this new sports world where the real money is...it isn't from John Q. Public and his measly season tickets, it's from huge corporate sponsors and luxury boxes.  The Coliseum, while it's a nice home, was essentially destroyed by Mount Davis.

There are many different ways this can work out.  This can wind up being a Pirates situation where the new ballpark doesn't do much for the team in terms of attendance OR as I think it will probably go, a new ballpark is a drawing card for Californians.  Californians are a different breed.  While many of us here on AN live and die with every single move our A's make, the majority of those who follow baseball casually in the Bay Area probably don't realize Macha has been fired and Ron Washington is now the manager of a rival team.  In order to fill a stadium regularly, you need to get those people there.  And I'm sorry, but the Coliseum was woefully inadequate on nights when it was full.  I remember going to the ALCS game and not being able to move in the walkways just to go get a freaking soda.  It would take 20 minutes to a half an hour just to get to the front of a line and order a Mountain Dew.

I'm hoping that the A's work some elements of the Coliseum into the new stadium, like I love the  excessive foul ground because it shows off players amazing abilities (like Chavez), but the truth is that I'm going to miss that old concrete bowl.  It's given me a lot of great memories.

Again, I know many of you are going to be pissed off about this, but I'd like to think that the A's being able to stop losing players like Tejada, Giambi, Hudson, Mulder and Zito will help alleviate your pain.  More revenues from a stadium means more long-term Athletics.  Fortunately, many of those players broke down after they left the A's, but many fans are still attached to those players.

I'm excited about the concept of a new stadium and what it could do to help the A's in the long-term.  I don't think it means that they will be more likely to re-sign someone like Zito this year, but when some of the other contracts come up down the road, like Nick Swisher and Milton Bradley, perhaps the A's open the wallet a little more.  It also puts a little needle right into the Giants because the A's are essentially moving right next door to where the Giants draw the majority of their fanbase.  The tide may turn in the Giants/A's casual fan battle just by simple geography.  

Any way, right now, it still remains speculation until we see it in multiple places.  It's funny, I told an AN member as we were leaving our last game this year, I think the A's are going to announce a move to Fremont this offseason.  I just didn't expect it to happen so soon.

What do you think, AN?  Good move?  Bad move?  Could the A's have done anything to remain in Oakland?  Or was this destiny?

I can say this, I'm just happy the team is staying in the East Bay.  Hopefully they retain the name "Oakland Athletics" as well.  Hell, if the Pistons can do it, why can't the A's?  Then again, calling themselves the "San Jose Athletics" might be advantageous to garnering additional business support.  Just don't call yourselves something silly like, "The Bay Area Athletics of Fremont."

0 recs  |  Comment 299 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Oh and for anyone wondering
why I deleted the diary on this...the diary was copying and pasting an entire article.  Don't do this, please, fellow ANers.  That's copyright infringement and I don't want to get a cease and desist letter from KCBS.

Thanks.

by Tyler Bleszinski on Nov 6, 2006 11:12 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

sorry bout that
completely slipped my mind when i posted it. i know its no excuse, but i guess i got caught up in the news at the moment

by fadedash on Nov 6, 2006 11:30 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

No apology necessary
I know a lot of people don't realize it so there isn't malicious intent involved.

by Tyler Bleszinski on Nov 6, 2006 11:43 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Good or Bad is sort of pointless.
It was inevitable.  The Coli's time has come and gone.  The A's were not going to be a viable franchise in that paticular venue much longer.  Hell, truth be told, the A's have struggled in Oakland for years.  If it weren't for the excellent caliber of baseball that they play, the Oakland experience may have ended long ago.  It really comes down to money, as it always does.  The team will enjoy success in Fremont.  Especially with our GM, who is perhaps the Branch Rickey of his day.  The owners seem intent on loosening the purse strings, so perhaps the team will see dividens before the new park ever opens.  Lets hope so.  I for one believe it will be the San Jose A's.  The money makes it inevitable.  
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Nov 6, 2006 11:16 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

I say they'll still be the Oakland A's
By moving to Fremont, they A) still have ties to the East Bay AND B) are closer to San Jose to get those corporate dollars.  I like the fact that moving to Fremont sticks it to the Giants by drawing from SJ without actually moving to SJ.

The Giants can't do anything about the A's moving to Fremont, but since SJ is their "territory" still, they have a say on whether or not the A's can re-name themselves the San Jose A's.  Therefore, I still see "Oakland A's in their future."

Lance Armstrong can make homophobic jokes on ESPN, yet Harold Reynolds pays the ultimate price? Explain that to me.

by gmoneymcg on Nov 6, 2006 2:45 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

like blez said
if the Detroit Pistons can do it, heck if the "New York" Giants/Jets can do it (isn't their stadium in the wrong state?), then Oakland Athletics it shall be.

Keep the legacy of 4 championships alive.  Even though the "franchise" officially has 9, those Philadelphia ones don't count in my eyes.

by smash on Nov 6, 2006 6:41 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I've probably been to my last A's game
It was a nice ride while it lasted.

But all my childhood experiences and emotions are tied up with the team being in my hometown.

Fremont is another country to me. I think they have a Fry's, right?

And before you tell me I'm a fairweather fan, save it for all those who wouldn't go to the Coliseum because of Mt. Davis. WTF? The Coliseum was a fine place to a game.

I've been to Pac Bell or whatever they're calling it, and the cutesy beauty of it was fine for an inning -- but I was still bored out of my mind.

Watching sports is all about emotion for me. A's, Raiders, Warriors. As each team moves or dies, my life as a professional sports fan dies with it.

When the Raiders move back to LA, I'll be down to the Warriors. How pathetic is that! But more time for my kids...

by billy north hitting the wall on Nov 7, 2006 7:30 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Totally respect
your feelings biily....the wall. Although, I'm glad the A's are finally getting a much need new park in a good location. I always liked the view of the real Mt.Davis in the old days--there's a lot of fantsastic memories in that old park.

by Salvatore on Nov 7, 2006 10:10 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

CONSPIRACY!!!
Actually, thanks Blez, we don't want you or AN to get into trouble. There were just so many brilliant things written, it will be too hard recapture the passion of the moment.
"I've been accused of using too many words...I suppose that's like accusing Mozart of using too many notes." Bill King

by Gerard on Nov 6, 2006 11:18 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Maybe there is one...
There is no real reason for the Fremont story to be news this morning, except that someone leaked it this morning.

Maybe someone wants the current A's story in the local media to be about the move to Fremont, and not about grumbling that the A's let Wash get away.

by socal on Nov 6, 2006 11:38 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Mixed emotions
I attended my first game in oakland in 1971. I attended hundreds of games throug the late 70's to present. The apex of attendance in the early 90's was remarkable to see since I was used to 1000 to 5000 attendance per game. But since the football team returned the stadium has not been as good. I hate to see the team leave, and so many memories there. But it is better than a move to another state. I have lived through that spector several times, Portland, Denver, Washington DC, Las Vegas etc. So make the best of it, I will. Go A's.

by billyball1981 on Nov 6, 2006 11:21 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

how about the Fremont Mutineers?
Works nicely with the town's namesake, and with the coup d'Macha.
but jesus--rhyming is a pain in the ass! -- Rubin Sierra @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 6, 2006 11:22 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

fremont mutineers
they should hire kotsay as the new manager.
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

by xbhaskarx on Nov 6, 2006 11:41 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I love it...
Anything that gets this team a brand new state of the art stadium away from football and keeps hem in the area is great in my mind.  Eliminating the Sacramento, Portland, Las Vegas worries is just huge.  I sure hoope this ends up going through.
Bring back Hammer.

by OaktownPower on Nov 6, 2006 11:23 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

As a relatively new Portland resident,
it would have been cool to have the A's come here... the name would still have the same flow too... the Portland A's has a nice ring to it.

Plus... Fremont kind of ... um... sucks.  Almost anything is better than the colliseum, though.  

"Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser" -- Vince Lombardi

by HugeAthleticSupporter on Nov 6, 2006 12:09 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Portland is a minor league town
Former Portland mayor Vera Katz wanted the Expos to move there, but the hippies weren't into it because baseball is too "competitive."

My condolences on your move to the foggy Northwest.

The A's success should surprise no one. They're a much better team than people give them credit for. -- Joe Morgan

by BubbaDude on Nov 6, 2006 12:59 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Nice to see you don't generalize much.
Did you used to post as reztips?
"Next thing you know, they'll have me taking an overdose of pills."--Milton Bradley

by jeepers on Nov 6, 2006 1:11 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

There is life after Portland
I-5 goes in both directions, luckily.

And no, I didn't.

The A's success should surprise no one. They're a much better team than people give them credit for. -- Joe Morgan

by BubbaDude on Nov 6, 2006 1:31 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

In any case
I'm growing tired of the increasing invocation of politics on this site.  
"Next thing you know, they'll have me taking an overdose of pills."--Milton Bradley

by jeepers on Nov 6, 2006 1:50 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

What politics?
The subject was the City of Portland's efforts to attract an MLB franchise.

I observed that Portland is a minor-league town, which it is (home of the Portland Beavers, a Padres farm team), and you accused me of "generalizing."

Are you having a bad hair day?

The A's success should surprise no one. They're a much better team than people give them credit for. -- Joe Morgan

by BubbaDude on Nov 6, 2006 4:38 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

if having a minor-league team...
in but one sport, even limited to baseball, is how you determine if a town is "minor league", well, that's pretty absurd.  I guess my hometown of Buffalo is a minor league town then, since they're home to the AAA Bisons in addition to the Bills, which sell out their 80,000 seat stadium every week despite the team's mediocrity and the economics of the area, and the Sabres, who are poised to dominate the NHL/sell out all 41 home games each season for years to come.  Charlotte, home to the AAA Knights, would be a minor league town, despite having the Bobcats and Panthers.  

And here's the best one: NYC would be a minor league town, because Brooklyn and Staten Island have single-A teams from the NY-Penn League.  

A better example of a minor league town is Rochester, NY, home to the AAA Red Wings and the Sabres' AHL affiliate, the Americans.  No major league teams, multiple minor league teams.    

"We don't want haddock and chips, we want cod. In cod we trust." --Ghostigital, the pride of Iceland

by Cutthemullet on Nov 6, 2006 11:27 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

LOL
"Next thing you know, they'll have me taking an overdose of pills."--Milton Bradley

by jeepers on Nov 7, 2006 11:02 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

A statement
doesn't have to be overtly political to be political.
"Next thing you know, they'll have me taking an overdose of pills."--Milton Bradley

by jeepers on Nov 7, 2006 11:08 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Trust me
There's a lot worse places to live than the "foggy Northwest," bud.  I'd know, I used to live in Santa Rosa (zing!)
Zito: I would never bet against this team. First of all because it's against the rules...

by Joey C. on Nov 6, 2006 5:57 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Exiled in Portland
I spent 2 1/2 yrs of exile in Portland, and didn't care for it. Not only is it 800 miles from the Oakland Coliseum, but they don't have In-N-Out burgers or decent barbeque, the hallmarks of  advanced civilization.

Living there will make you realize how special it is to be in a place where you can cruise on down to the BART station and be carried to the ballpark with a plate of baby back ribs from Willy's 81+ times a year.

The A's success should surprise no one. They're a much better team than people give them credit for. -- Joe Morgan

by BubbaDude on Nov 6, 2006 6:12 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

barbarian
Tomato-based bbq sauces are a scourge on mankind. Give me hickory-smoked, vinegar-based Carolina 'q (Piedmont or valley style) or give me death.
but jesus--rhyming is a pain in the ass! -- Rubin Sierra @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 6, 2006 6:38 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Real BBQ
Don't need no sauce - just a nice dry rib and the pig speaks for himself.
The A's success should surprise no one. They're a much better team than people give them credit for. -- Joe Morgan

by BubbaDude on Nov 6, 2006 6:57 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

zactly
but jesus--rhyming is a pain in the ass! -- Rubin Sierra @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 6, 2006 7:26 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

With that being said
I'm partial to the mustard-based sauces they use in the Carolinas for pulled pork.
The A's success should surprise no one. They're a much better team than people give them credit for. -- Joe Morgan

by BubbaDude on Nov 6, 2006 7:57 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

if it's a minor league town...
then how do you explain the huge, loyal fanbase for the Blazers that thrived until the Jail Blazer incidents finally caught up with the team?  The Blazers long had one of the most passionate, rabid follwings in the league.  It might be the only game in town, sure, but PGA pro Peter Jacobsen and the rest of those "hippies" in Portland filled the Rose Garden to capacity night in, night out.
"We don't want haddock and chips, we want cod. In cod we trust." --Ghostigital, the pride of Iceland

by Cutthemullet on Nov 6, 2006 11:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Think they would go Bay Area Athletics?
Probably would cause too many issues with the Gigantes.
Bring back Hammer.

by OaktownPower on Nov 6, 2006 11:23 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Do you really think they give a sh*t...
what the Giants think or want?

I'll answer my own question:  No!

"When I got injured, I felt disrespected. Waaannnh!" - Mark Kotsay

by FoolshGame22 on Nov 6, 2006 11:26 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Of course not....
But I imagine they dont want to deal with any kind of lawsuit either.
Bring back Hammer.

by OaktownPower on Nov 6, 2006 11:44 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

If a team can appropriate a name like...
the California Angels or the Texas Rangers, the Giants would have zero chance of success with such a lawsuit.
"When I got injured, I felt disrespected. Waaannnh!" - Mark Kotsay

by FoolshGame22 on Nov 6, 2006 11:46 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Moreno did it, and he has
even less a right to use L.A. (see as how his team doesn't play there) than the A's have to Bay Area (a region in which our team does play).
Stat Wonk Futurist

by salb918 on Nov 6, 2006 11:41 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Golden State Athletics
What's the point of attaching a number to everything you do? If your numbers go up, you're having more fun.

by AlwaysSweatin on Nov 6, 2006 11:45 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Don't Know
If the A's were just getting it, just in case they want to go this direction or something. But I heard they registered the rights to this name a couple weeks ago.

by Athletix Man on Nov 6, 2006 1:31 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

If they have to change the name--
Bay Area Athletics I guess I could support. East Bay Athletics would be nice. Fremont/Silicon Valley/San Jose... all that shit would make me burst into burning tears of hatred.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."

by Kyli on Nov 6, 2006 2:50 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It won't be East Bay A's.
For the same reason it won't be the San Jose A's - when you say it, it's all A-A's..

It'll stay Oakland, at least for a while, which will help take the sting out for the longtime fans.

"It's time to blow this team up." - Oaktoon, July 2006

by Ozzz on Nov 6, 2006 3:27 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I like the East Bay A's
It has a nice sound to it... This is only of course if they want to change it - because Oaktown is the name that I definitely prefer.

by SD Erik on Nov 6, 2006 3:28 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

How about
The 510 athletics

by billyball1981 on Nov 6, 2006 6:02 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

i'm sad and excited at the same time
but i'm starting to get more excited than sad!

THE A's ARE FINALLY GETTING A NEW BALLPARK!!!!

IN THE BAY AREA!!!

by gotgreen on Nov 6, 2006 11:27 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Goodbye Raiders
As long as the name and uni's stay the same I think this will be good for the A's.  I'm sad to see the memories of the coliseum go, but it was time.  Since the twins had a new stadium coming it would have been only us and the Marlins sharing with an NFL team.  Here's to a new era that hopefully includes retaining class A free agents!
"That dude's out of his tree." -Zito

by SacTownAthletic on Nov 6, 2006 11:27 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

the name should still be "Oakland"
and I believe that it will be kept that way as well...

Blez mentioned the Pistons, but a few weeks ago I was thinking of all the pro teams that play in different cities than their team name reflects; let's see how many I can remember:

Pistons play in Auburn Hills
The Jets and Giants play in a different STATE (East Rutherford, NJ)
The Lakers used to play in the Forum in Inglewood
Dallas Cowboys play in Irving, TX
The Buffalo Bills play in Orchard Park, NY

go Frank go...500 > 756*

by money baller on Nov 6, 2006 11:28 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Two more...
The Texas Rangers in Arlington
The Washington Redskins in Landover, Md.

The only other one from the past that I can remember is before the NFL Cardinals were Arizona, they were called Phoenix, but they played in Tempe.

"So, whatever, Ozzie." -- Nick Swisher

by FormerHuntsvilleStar on Nov 6, 2006 3:17 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Miami Dolphins/Florida Marlins
their stadium is exiled off the Florida pike, northwest of Miami, much closer to Ft. Lauderdale.  Don't know where it's officially located.  I think I also used to see bylines of Sunrise, FL for the Panthers...sounds like a suburb of Miami.  

The Ottawa Senators play in the middle of nowhere; their arena, the Corel Centre, is apparently pink and in the midst of cornfields.  Quite the venue.

Lions used to play in Pontiac, Mich, back in the glorious days of the Silverdome.

The Arizona Cardinals' new stadium is, if I remember correctly from the MNF game a few weeks ago, 40 miles away from Phoenix...yeah, they're not the Phoenix Cardinals anymore, but that's quite a distance away from a big city.

Foxborough, MA may be the strangest location for a stadium in pro sports.  Small town that's none too close to either Boston or Providence...

that's all I've got

   

"We don't want haddock and chips, we want cod. In cod we trust." --Ghostigital, the pride of Iceland

by Cutthemullet on Nov 6, 2006 11:47 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Silicon Valley Athletics
That has to be the leading candidate among the possible new team names. The A's want the team to be Silicon Valley's team, and they want SV companies to buy season tickets and luxury boxes. The city of Fremont would be delighted to have a team name that reinforces the idea that Fremont is in Silicon Valley. The south bay media would embrace the name as well.

by socal on Nov 6, 2006 11:29 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

It sounds like a soccer team name.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."

by Kyli on Nov 6, 2006 2:51 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Never happen.
Oakland A's for the next three seasons, then when the Oakland fans get over the move...

Then, and only then, will they change it to the San Jose Athletics.

"It's time to blow this team up." - Oaktoon, July 2006

by Ozzz on Nov 6, 2006 3:29 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Anyone still believe Oakland was Plan A?
That Lew Wolff was being sincere when he said he was going to try his hardest to get a deal done in Oakland?  That the 66th Ave/Swap Meet plan, with 100 owners to be bought out at market rates, without eminent domain, after announcing an intent to build there, was anything but a cover story?

Whether one loves or hates the Fremont move, we should all admit the reality that Wolff et al decided Oakland wasn't going to happen from before the day they bought the team.  I will forever despise Wolff for blowing off Oakland and lying about it along the way.

All that said:  I may still support the Fremont plan when more facts are in.

I threw that horseshoe into the weeds to see what luck can bring

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Nov 6, 2006 11:30 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

but at the same time
how hard was the city of Oakland trying to keep the A's here? it didn't seem to me like keeping the A's in oakland was one of their top priorities (which is understandable with so many other things going on in the city).
"I truly think the A's are out of here in three or four years," Reid said, adding that he did not think there was the political will to subsidize a new stadium for the defending American League West champions.

by gotgreen on Nov 6, 2006 11:33 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Agreed
"I've been accused of using too many words...I suppose that's like accusing Mozart of using too many notes." Bill King

by Gerard on Nov 6, 2006 11:36 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Cart/horse
No doubt, Oakland's civic will started to wane, and is difficult to get focused even in the best of circumstances.  But the City started giving up on Wolff after he started giving up on Oakland...cancelling meetings, rejecting proposals without offering alternatives, and negotiating with Fremont and SJ (via territorial rights talks with Giants which apparently were going on the whole time, Wolff's denials notwithstanding) in direct conflict with the public pledge to focus on Oakland for a year.

Larry Reid was the guy who said he'd stake his political career on the 66th Ave site working out.  His words on Oakland will or anything else are especially hollow.

I threw that horseshoe into the weeds to see what luck can bring

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Nov 6, 2006 11:39 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The die was cast...
when Schott blew off Robert Bobb's presentation on the Uptown site.  Subsequently, Jerry Brown fired Bobb, the A's biggest governmental champion, and awarded the site to his in-laws at Forest City.

by BleacherDave on Nov 7, 2006 3:09 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

agreed (that's a-"greed"), but ...
... to be fair, your "et al" elides the fact that the City wasn't exactly dispatching uniformed teens from Jerry's Shining Path Academy with shovels at lunch break, either.

Not that they should have, IMSO.

but jesus--rhyming is a pain in the ass! -- Rubin Sierra @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 6, 2006 11:34 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I always thought Fremont was the plan...
and it was a better plan than Oakland from the start.  Oakland politicos had neither the sense nor the will to build a new stadium for the A's.  The new ownership group knew this from the outset.
"When I got injured, I felt disrespected. Waaannnh!" - Mark Kotsay

by FoolshGame22 on Nov 6, 2006 11:36 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

You should be angrier at Jerry Brown
that you are at Lew Wolff.  The A's had a viable downtown solution and Brown did everything he possibly could to kill it.  
"Next thing you know, they'll have me taking an overdose of pills."--Milton Bradley

by jeepers on Nov 6, 2006 11:54 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

In other words
Yes, Wolff probably thought from the beginning that Oakland had no chance, but what sane person who observed the interactions between Oakland and the previous ownership would?
"Next thing you know, they'll have me taking an overdose of pills."--Milton Bradley

by jeepers on Nov 6, 2006 11:56 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Jerry Brown has no soul
He long ago traded his moral compass for one based on his never-ending quest for elected office, presumably because votes offer validation his parents never gave him.  (Small example:  this Jesuit seminarian is now pro death penalty) I despise Jerry for a host of reasons which include but go well beyond the Oakland A's.

But while Jerry killed a great possible site, he did not himself move the A's out of Oakland.  Wolffish consciously chose a period of political flux in Oakland (lame duck, polarizing successor candidates, Raider-caused negatives to pols in favor of stadia) in which to give the city a one year ultimatum...and then Lew stopped meeting with Oakland and started meeting with other towns within six months.  So while Jerry gets a lot of my anger in other forums, in matters Athletic Brown is the Otis (Ned Beatty) character to Wolffish's Lex Luthor.

I threw that horseshoe into the weeds to see what luck can bring

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Nov 6, 2006 12:22 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Let's be honest here.
Wolff didn't want to stay in Oakland, for obvious reasons, but the city didn't want to do dick in changing his mind.

If you're going to hate anyone, hate everyone, but also be sure to take into account that Wolff could have made a shedload of cash moving the team to Vegas, and instead he sent it 30 minutes down the BART line.

As someone who has to cross an international border and travel four hours to see a Major League ballgame... wear it.

"It's time to blow this team up." - Oaktoon, July 2006

by Ozzz on Nov 6, 2006 3:32 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Vegas?
Vegas was never going to happen. It was a bogeyman used to scare the gullible.
Some are sabermetricians.

by andeux on Nov 6, 2006 3:41 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Ladies and gentlemen, your Las Vegas Husseins!
but jesus--rhyming is a pain in the ass! -- Rubin Sierra @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 6, 2006 4:15 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Brown deserves more blame than you are giving him
Don't forget that a deal was all but in place to keep the team downtown - a deal manuvered by former Oakland City manager Robert Bobb, who previously had done a deal to get a AAA stadium built in a Virginia city he was the city manager of prior to coming to Oakland. But instead of a stadium, Brown wanted to build housing and the next thing you know Bobb is out the door. With an alarming lack of historic sensitivity or long-term vision, Brown made it clear over and over that he didn't give a shit about sports in Oakland. I'll never forget the night several years ago when Brown showed up at the Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Jack London Square wearing a 49ers jacket. Oakland will forever be kicking itself for letting this happen, and I hope history will report that it was Jerry Brown who was the lead culprit in allowing a piece of the city's soul to leave without a fight.  

by willcmatthews on Nov 6, 2006 10:06 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Let's remember...
that it was Schott/Man that didn't bother to show up for Bobb's presentation.

by BleacherDave on Nov 7, 2006 3:12 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Wolff has been involved for a long time
Let's not forget that Wolff was also involved for a lengthy period of time prior to his ownership group taking control of the A's so it isn't like this suddenly all happened overnight.

The city government of Oakland has made it clear that it has bigger issues than dealing with a sports team (which if you live in Oakland you should praise at least at face value) and hasn't hidden that fact.

The economics of baseball forced the A's to complete this process in a timeline that Oakland could not meet.  The timeline was addressed up front, the need was obvious, and Oakland couldn't move forward.  Pretty simple business decision.

by titaniumaardvark on Nov 6, 2006 4:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

uptown site in 02
i remember in 02 the uptown location was the one robert bobb (the city manager at the time) was pushing and had worked out with the company that designed pacbell. finally jerry killed it cuz he had the development deal for condos in that location (dvlopers that funded his campaign). Ultimately robert bobb left oakland, and I think this had a lot to do with it. He's now helping DC build a park for the nationals.

this is probably a bit reductionist, but it was 4 years and several brain cells ago (spent on lack of sleep...and keeping track of youngins.) So there are probably some details that complete a more detailed picture...

by giambizombie on Nov 6, 2006 5:09 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I disagree 100%, FSU--
I feel this news vindicates those who supported Wolff's motives as pure and sincere. Oakland was Plan A--a pipe dream given the city's lack of cooperation, but one to be explored nonetheless. "Close by" was Plan B, and appears to be happening. Vegas, Portland, etc. was Plan Z. Thank you, Lew.
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

by Nico on Nov 6, 2006 1:20 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Just to properly calibrate my credul-o-meter
are you saying you believe Wolff fully and sincerely explored the Oakland options, only to be thwarted by City gov't?  Because to me that seems grossly at odds with the facts in evidence.  Even the hyperbole averse Marine Layer/vertig0 agrees that Wolff wanted Oakland out of the picture to focus on greener pastures.  Whether that's good or bad is a different discussion.  

Lew's motives are pure and sincere:  pure dedication to maximizing his asset value, and sincerely not giving a fuck about Oakland and the working class fanbase.  Again, that's entirely his right.  Doesn't mean I won't hold it against him.

I threw that horseshoe into the weeds to see what luck can bring

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Nov 6, 2006 1:45 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Uh...
working class fanbase

While it makes a nice us vs. them story -- and one that I've subscribed to over the years -- is this really true?

Stat Wonk Futurist

by salb918 on Nov 6, 2006 1:47 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I don't mean to suggest a proportion
Perhaps it's 50%, perhaps it's 10%, I really have no idea.  But whatever the numbers, I believe the A's consciously decided it wasn't worth catering to the low end anymore, be it deck closure, new stadium, or anything in between.  To some degree it's the tenor of the times, from Baltimore to Philly to Pittburgh to Milwaukee, and in one light the A's are no different from any other team looking to step into nicer digs.  I will always believe, though, that there was an opportunity in Oakland to find a different solution, but that team owners and local pols, both past and present, squandered that chance in favor of more base considerations.
I threw that horseshoe into the weeds to see what luck can bring

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Nov 6, 2006 1:58 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

<snerk>
<caters to the low end>
but jesus--rhyming is a pain in the ass! -- Rubin Sierra @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 6, 2006 2:07 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Since the low end rarely showed up in numbers...
... can you blame him?

Oakland residents just didn't want it enough.

Sure, you did, but you only had about 18,000 friends matching you, and if the people won't come out to play, why should the owner?

"It's time to blow this team up." - Oaktoon, July 2006

by Ozzz on Nov 6, 2006 3:34 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I think his exploration was as full and sincere
as warranted, given the potential of actually accomplishing a stadium in Oakland.  
"Next thing you know, they'll have me taking an overdose of pills."--Milton Bradley

by jeepers on Nov 6, 2006 1:52 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I thought you believed...
...and passionately, too, that Oakland did indeed thwart the deal by withholding development rights within the City.  

And "maximizing the asset" and "delivering fan value" are far from mutually exclusive--just ask Arte Moreno.  The Coliseum is a, well, dump for baseball.  I think the new stadium maskes many things possible.  

I'm also not buying the class warfare nonsense.  What--nobody works in Fremont?  Oaklanders don't own cars?  I really think the A's draw from all over now, and that the SiliValley crowd (workers all) will take to this team like flies to honey.  This is a great move that keeps our team around these parts for-just-about-ever.  

The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus

by The Dogfather on Nov 6, 2006 2:04 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

On belief: I'm with the Buzzcocks
Just for clarification, I never said Oakland thwarted the 66th Ave deal.  What I said, as you and I went around a bit, was that Oakland had a very valuable asset--the ability to rezone land for development--and that just giving those rights to Wolffish carte blanche wouldn't be very responsible.   It proved to be a moot point, of course, as Wolff soon stopped returning the City's phone calls on the subject.

BTW, in that thread you also questioned how much development was going on near the Coli absent the A's.  Have you checked out the sprawl of building off San leandro Blvd near 66th Ave. lately?

I threw that horseshoe into the weeds to see what luck can bring

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Nov 6, 2006 5:26 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

And I said they'd be trading those rights...
...for increased tax revenues of various species--and they coulda kept "their" team, to boot.

Haven't checked on development along San Leandro Blvd--when I drive I take Seminary from 580.  I think somebody might have painted his house during the past two seasons, but that's about it.  If you're saying it's a $billion development, then Oakland maybe made the right choice.  If not...not so much?      

The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus

by The Dogfather on Nov 6, 2006 5:40 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I agree.
There was too much work done and too many months invested to call this a smoke-screen.  Now, I don't believe that the team took an Oakland-or-bust approach--they're real estate developers, after all, and city boundaries are pretty arbitrary.  But they looked at a variety of options in parallel, and chose the best one.  

Hallelujah.  Teaming with the tech-heads at Cisco is brilliant.  I think the new digs'll be a geek  wonderland, and great fun.  Let the Halos have their Disneydiorama--this stadium will redefine the fan experience.  Bring it on!

The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus

by The Dogfather on Nov 6, 2006 1:51 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I don't know about Plan A.
But I think Oakland legitimately had the right of 1st refusal.  Which they excersised.  Any option for Oakland retaining the team would have involved some form of subsiday from the city.  Be it infrastructure concessions or whatever, keeping the team was going to have a price.  Oakland declined.  

I think once Lew was certain that the political will for keeping the team was lacking, he started searching elsewhere.  I don't blame him.  It's easy for us to offer our social idea's, as long as someone else is paying the bills.  Besides which, how long would you expect Lew to wait?  He's in his seventies after all.   He may not live to see the Fremont site come to fruition as it is.

"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Nov 6, 2006 2:28 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

True enough
But you can just as easily turn that whole argument around: Wolff asked for massive, unrealistic subsidies from Oakland for his "Plan A," and you can't really blame them for lacking the political will to make it happen given that the costs would probably have greatly outweighed the benefits to the city. (But as others have pointed out, we can blame them for not pushing harder for a more reasonable downtown stadium plan several years earlier.)

The bottom line is that Fremont had the site that Wolff wanted, with room for his "ballpark village" development, and Oakland didn't, and that's not really anyone's fault. But given that the 66th ave. plan was such an obvious non-starter from the beginning, I can't see why Wolff bothered to propose it other than as a public relations ploy.

Some are sabermetricians.

by andeux on Nov 6, 2006 2:41 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yes, but at least he gave them
the benefit of the doubt.  I think we are in agreement that Wolfe is not the "bad guy" here.  He was brought in to get a job done, and he accomplished his goal.  I for one am pleased that such an innovator has control of the team.  Another point in his favor is that at least he cared enough as to be concerned with public relations.  After all, the "Oakland only" crowd has been as ineffectual as they are numerous.  I feel for those that are hardcore baseball fans and are loosing their team.  But the fact is that if they really are loosing them, at least they have visitation rights just down the street.  The burden being placed on them is not all that great.  Many of us commute a long way to see the team.  This move will be good for them, and I am in favor of anything that is good for the team.  
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Nov 6, 2006 2:52 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Unrealistic subsidies?
Any other ball team/city negotiations that have happened in the US, anywhere, over the past ten years have involved the city either paying for a new stadium in part, or in entirety.

Just look at the Mt Davis travesty as evidence.

Lew didn't ask for a new stadium, or part of a new stadium, or even renovations to the existing stadium. He didn't ask for eminent domain to be used to get land for him (like Bush did in Arlington), he didn't hold the city to ransom (like they did in Washington), or ask for a sales tax to pay for his dream (a la Cincinnati).

All he asked for was the right to build a new stadium, at his expense, on land the city had zoned for other things.

Unrealistic? Maybe. But that's Oakland problem, not his. Lew Wolff offered the best baseball stadium deal for any city that I've seen in my existence.

"It's time to blow this team up." - Oaktoon, July 2006

by Ozzz on Nov 6, 2006 3:41 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

City across the bay?
I'm sorry, that doesn't ring any bells. There's a city across the bay?

News to me.

"It's time to blow this team up." - Oaktoon, July 2006

by Ozzz on Nov 7, 2006 9:41 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

In a nutshell,
The bottom line is that Fremont had the site that Wolff wanted, with room for his "ballpark village" development, and Oakland didn't, and that's not really anyone's fault.

I wish I knew how to make those kewl quote boxes.  This snippet deserves one.

by BleacherDave on Nov 7, 2006 3:20 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I still think Oakland was Plan A...
...and Fremont was Plan B.  But Plan A was washing up, and Plan B became more lucrative as the time passed.
Lance Armstrong can make homophobic jokes on ESPN, yet Harold Reynolds pays the ultimate price? Explain that to me.

by gmoneymcg on Nov 6, 2006 2:47 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Blame it on Jerry Brown
Here's how I see it: there was a great proposal to build a downtown ballpark in Oakland that was engineered by City Manager Robert Bobb as part of a diverse development including commercial space, housing, etc.  Then, Jerry gets elected with a 10K promise to bring residents downtown.  So, in the interests of fulfilling his campaign pledge, and simultaneously winning the hearts, minds and dollars of his developer friends, Jerry rejects the ballpark deal, pushes Mr. Bobb out of Oakland (to Washington, D.C., where a new ballpark deal is worked out), and the rest is history.  Jerry gets major campaign gifts, runs for Attorney General; the A's go to Fremont.

Love them politics!

where's hendu when you really need him?

by OaktownWarrior on Nov 6, 2006 11:32 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

I'm disappointed in you.
"...and then a third guy walks in and starts punching me in the grief bone."

by Jennifer on Nov 6, 2006 11:41 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

What?
Stat Wonk Futurist

by salb918 on Nov 6, 2006 11:42 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

No creepy-ass emoticon.
"...and then a third guy walks in and starts punching me in the grief bone."

by Jennifer on Nov 6, 2006 11:43 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

You mean....
this?

<;)>:)~~((*#:M<AMGL"?#$:Q#@OIM?GSR#E(WTF~~~

Stat Wonk Futurist

by salb918 on Nov 6, 2006 11:45 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

There it is!
"...and then a third guy walks in and starts punching me in the grief bone."

by Jennifer on Nov 6, 2006 11:46 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

you know where you stand in a hellhole
</Spinal Tap>
but jesus--rhyming is a pain in the ass! -- Rubin Sierra @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 6, 2006 12:08 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Big Bottom....?
Anyone talkin' 'bout bun cakes, my girl got 'em.
Hope Floats...I hate Sandra Bullock

by franks a lot on Nov 6, 2006 12:11 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

couple more thoughts
first, i agree with blez that all the casual fans will swing over to fremont with the addition of the new stadium. These high-tech companies would love to buy luxury boxes and help us fill up the banner advertising spots that are currently vacant in the Colisseum. Besides the luxury boxes, I think the new ballpark will replace Pac Bell as the place businesses buy season tickets and distribute them to clients/employees, and the proximity to the south bay will bring a lot more casual fans who are normally too scared to bring their family to oakland.

next, I hope Oakland bucks the recent trend of cities building all-american retro style ballparks and builds sometihng innovative and modern. I tihnk with Cisco's influence, we should build something along the lines of the Arizona Cardinal's new stadium or Allanz Arena (sp?), the soccer stadium in Germany that hosted a few world cup matches.

go Frank go...500 > 756*

by money baller on Nov 6, 2006 11:43 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

design ...
to me, you know you can't really go wrong with a retro park. That's a big plus. If you try to get too innovative it's really easy to go really wrong ...

by devo on Nov 6, 2006 11:46 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Pac Bell will still have it corporate ties...
It is San Fransisco, place of huge high-rises, and the Giants are their local team.

But I see it evenly distributed when the moving vans head south on the 880.

Lance Armstrong can make homophobic jokes on ESPN, yet Harold Reynolds pays the ultimate price? Explain that to me.

by gmoneymcg on Nov 6, 2006 2:49 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It's definitely a good location
for them ... from a business stand point, they couldn't do much better. Oddly, it'll probably be a shorter drive for me from Sac ... though I definitely hope to not still be living here five years or so from now.

It'll be a reasonable drive for pretty much anyone in the area not from SF or Richmond.

My feelings will hinge a lot on the name ... I'm willing to accept that Fremont is just an Oakland suburb housing our team, so if the name doesn't change, I won't mind too much. The Fremont A's, East Bay A's and, especially, the Silicon Valley A's will be tough to stomach. As much as I've ragged on the halos (who aren't and never have been from LA), I could deal with the Oakland A's of Fremont.

by devo on Nov 6, 2006 11:43 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Believe it or not
I think it might actually improve my drive from Sacramento because I won't have to drive past the Bay Bridge traffic.  The 680 has a carpool lane and I think it's going to make it easier.

by Tyler Bleszinski on Nov 6, 2006 11:48 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Counter-commute over the Sunol grade...
it will be easier for you.
"When I got injured, I felt disrespected. Waaannnh!" - Mark Kotsay

by FoolshGame22 on Nov 6, 2006 11:51 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I've only ever taken 680 once
going up was real bad, coming back was real good, so I don't know much about the traffic flow through there ... but it's more direct, so the distance probably isn't much different ...

by devo on Nov 6, 2006 1:08 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

correction
Angels were Los Angeles Angels from their inception in 1961 and even four months into their first season (1966) in Anaheim stadium - rechristened "California Angels" September 1966.

Two minor League teams in Southern Califronia prior to the Brooklyn LAndgrabbers: Hollywood Stars and Los Angeles Angels.

Congrats on the new stadium.

by RevHalofan on Nov 6, 2006 2:17 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

my bad ...
maybe the A's brass should seek to overcome east coast bias by naming the team the Philadelphia A's of Fremont, near Oakland. It hasn't been that much longer.

by devo on Nov 6, 2006 2:31 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Don't forget the Kansas City A's!
Not like there's any competition for that city's rights...
"It's time to blow this team up." - Oaktoon, July 2006

by Ozzz on Nov 6, 2006 3:44 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Difference between Anaheim and Fremont...
Anaheim is a city that's trying real hard to prove that they are on a worldwide level with Los Angeles, therefore it's more important for them to say they have two major league teams (Ducks, Angels) playing there with their name attached to them.

Fremont is looking to expand the dollars going into their city.  I don't see them as trying to become the fourth city in the Bay Area behind SF, SJ and Oakland.  They'll be happy with the flux of new buisness and entertainment that the stadium will bring and not worry about getting the name "Fremont" somewhere in the A's title.

Lance Armstrong can make homophobic jokes on ESPN, yet Harold Reynolds pays the ultimate price? Explain that to me.

by gmoneymcg on Nov 6, 2006 2:53 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

for facts sake
Angels were in LA from '61 (expansion year)  through '64.

by rjcicc on Nov 6, 2006 4:40 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Its All Good
good excuse for me to go back to my old stomping grounds been many moons since ive been to Freakmont last time i was there you could feed the ducks and geece at Lake Elizabeth and i miss Clover Leaf Bowling if its still there but i say go woth green and gold flames im memory of the Fremont Drag Strip!!!!

                                        R.I.P
                                      Honda Hills

                         

by MajorRager on Nov 6, 2006 11:44 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Clover leaf bowl is there...
Cloverdale Creamery is gone.

Honda hills brings back memories.

Now back to your regularly scheduled topic.

by whyareyou on Nov 6, 2006 5:43 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The Fate of the A's
   Was never in the hands of those who cared the most about the subject from a fan's point of view. For all of the years when there was talk of the A's moving, I dreaded the discussion because there was never a collective will by the Oakland politicos to reach consensus and desire to do anything but maintain the status quo.

    Dela Fuente would give nice lip service...until it came time to running for mayor. The talk then quieted down (as if supporting a baseball team would be politcally incorrect) and we can see where that landed him. Furthermore, any word from Dellums? We'll get the " I'm personally disappopinted" speech along with a reference about eminent domain. Let's see, wasn't that Mayor Wilson about 25 years ago who tried that?

   I blame the poticians in Oakland for this more than anyone else. The sad part is that, as Thomas Walker stated, it will be multiple youth groups and kids who will lose out on what the A's of Oakland meant to this community.

"I've been accused of using too many words...I suppose that's like accusing Mozart of using too many notes." Bill King

by Gerard on Nov 6, 2006 11:49 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

I am so FREAKING HAPPY!
As a Fremont resident, I don't think I could be more excited about this!! To have my boys in my back yard is just the greatest thing for me! I will be able to get the FULL Season Ticket plan because I will actually be able to make it out to all the games.

I think this is fabulous news. They need a new stadium desperately and if it can't be in Oakland, I am more than happy to welcome them to my home town! They are still in the East Bay and that is what matters most!

Recently I have been driving past the area where the ball park will be and I could almost see a ghostly image of the new stadium. It is as if a ball park was meant to be there.

I know this won't happen before 2010, but I am glad that we are seeing things moving. The questions will all soon be answered and speculations will turn to facts. This is the first step on a very exciting road. This is going to be some very fun years we have coming up! Can't Wait!

"This is the best hug in the major leagues, right here!" - Swisher Pics

by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Nov 6, 2006 11:56 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

AN Day at BCG's pad!
I'll bring cake.
"It's time to blow this team up." - Oaktoon, July 2006

by Ozzz on Nov 6, 2006 3:46 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Ill bring Bobby Crosby...
oh..wait.

by Amnesiac727 on Nov 6, 2006 6:52 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Once I get my own place
I will be happy to host! As long as Amnesiac727 keeps his promise! ;)
"This is the best hug in the major leagues, right here!" - Swisher Pics

by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Nov 6, 2006 9:37 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

A little help
One of the things I liked about the team being in Oakland was the ease of getting to the stadium for those of us who are tourists when we watch the A's.  BART dropping me off right at the stadium was nice.  Does it run to Fremont?  I should probably know that, but I don't.
As for the move, if it puts more money into the salary budget I'm all for it.  However, that opinion is obviously biased from my above question.  I could have an entirely different opinion if I lived in the Bay Area.

by IndianaAsfan on Nov 6, 2006 11:56 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Not really.
It currently runs to Fremont, but not anywhere near where the new ballpark would be located.  There are plans to extend BART in such a way that BART would run within about 2 miles of the new ballpark, but you'd have to take a (probably slow and inconvenient) shuttle from there.
"Next thing you know, they'll have me taking an overdose of pills."--Milton Bradley

by jeepers on Nov 6, 2006 12:06 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

There was an article this weekend
That talked about the addition of Warm Springs and Irvington stations. It is pretty much a done deal, and the article was more focused on the ballot measure for the connection between Fremont and Santa Clara County. But the point is, they said that the Warm Spring Station is a go, and soon.

Currently the Fremont Station is rather far from the Stadium sight. But the Warm Springs Station, (Warm Spring is the most southern district of Fremont, incase anyone didn't know) will be much closer and much more convinient. If it is located where I believe it will be, it won't be walking distance, but a shuttle will be much less of a issue. Maybe a short 5 minute trip. Not too bad!

"This is the best hug in the major leagues, right here!" - Swisher Pics

by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Nov 6, 2006 12:16 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

A ground-based shuttle
that travels 2 miles is a bottleneck waiting to happen, I'm afraid.
"Next thing you know, they'll have me taking an overdose of pills."--Milton Bradley

by jeepers on Nov 6, 2006 12:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I don't know how familiar you are with the area
But the route that would be taken from the station to the stadium really won't be too bad. It is not as far or as congested as 2 miles may sound, I promise! At least this is all in theory, if the Stadium and the Station land in the places I believe they are going, which I am fairly certain they will.
"This is the best hug in the major leagues, right here!" - Swisher Pics

by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Nov 6, 2006 12:22 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I don't think they'll bother with a shuttle
I'm pretty sure they'll want their fans to drive to the game- it simplifies matters for stadium operation and enhances the guard-gated-mall feeling that the target demographic prefers. I'm sure BART will attempt to set up some kind of bus service, as they do with the BART-to-airport bus, but probably not with the assistance of A's ownership; most likely it won't be used by many.
"You can throw your cocks if I don't care!" - Iggy Pop

by AlamedaAphid on Nov 6, 2006 2:07 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

not to mention parking fees
Wolffisher will presumably own the entire complex, including parking lots.

Fans taking PT to the game don't increase the revenue stream.

but jesus--rhyming is a pain in the ass! -- Rubin Sierra @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 6, 2006 2:11 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Oh yes they do!
Especially when the team owns every piece of real estate for three blocks around the stadium.
"It's time to blow this team up." - Oaktoon, July 2006

by Ozzz on Nov 6, 2006 3:47 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

to clarify ...
... all fans who come to the game add revenue stream (in the form of tickets, big foam fingers, $5 sodas, etc.).

Those who arrive via car add revenue stream via parking fees (and, I'd be willing to bet, "personal premium parking spot licenses").

Those who arrive via PT don't add revenue via parking. And cheapskates who arrive via PT are likelier than the drivers to have stocked up on peanuts and Aidell's at Costco in advance.

Revenue per fan who takes PT <<< revenue per fan who drives to the game.

but jesus--rhyming is a pain in the ass! -- Rubin Sierra @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 6, 2006 4:20 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

OR...
...they walk past six bars and restaurants and hotels and souvenir stores on their way from the cheap ass PT station to the cheap ass bleachers.
"It's time to blow this team up." - Oaktoon, July 2006

by Ozzz on Nov 6, 2006 4:40 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Warm Springs is far, far from a done deal
Among many hurdles is the fact that the recent federal funding nod is contingent on Santa Clara county and others stepping up to complete the BART-to-SJ loop, which has been "on the verge" of happening for decades.
I threw that horseshoe into the weeds to see what luck can bring

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Nov 6, 2006 12:24 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It will require a shuttle
The Fremont BART station is going to be several miles away the stadium and will require a shuttle to get there.  The proposed Warm Springs extension would be closer but a shuttle would still be required.  The stadium and BART station are on opposite sides of 880 from each other.

by titaniumaardvark on Nov 6, 2006 12:54 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Fremont in DA HOUSE!!
Being born and raised in Fremont, i am totally psyched taht the team is moving there.  It beats Sac and Vegas, we are still in the Bay Area, and we get a new stadium.  Besides not staying in Oakland, it is pretty much ideal.  Should we start practicing our new chant?... "Let's go Fremont! (clap, clap, clappity, clap) Let's go Fremont..."
President of the Brent Gates Fan Club

by SoCal As Fan on Nov 6, 2006 12:03 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Oaklands loss is Fremonts gain
I am just happy they are staying in the bay area.
When I look at him, I see only a halo of clutchness, no mortal body - FJM on THE CAPTAIN, Derek Jeter

by DCinWC on Nov 6, 2006 12:07 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

This is great news
The A's will finally get their OWN ballpark again, and the Raiders can rot in the Coliseum.

About the name, I doubt they will have the Fremont name associated with the team.  Why would they, do they want Fremont to become some tourist destination, or have the desire to be a "big city"?  Doubtfull.  Fremont is suburbia with a few light industry tech companies in the warm springs area.  I think all Fremont cares about are the tax dollars this would bring in.  

"...we don't score six, seven runs. We score three, four runs and play defense and pitch" - Eric Chavez

by pickinmachine on Nov 6, 2006 12:15 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Actually
They have been looking to create a "Downtown" area for years! As far back as I can remember that is for sure. There has never been a defined Downtown area or Tourist Destination specific area of the city. They have been looking to create that. This may be just the thing they were looking for! I don't think they want a "Big City" per say, but a downtown is definately desired!
"This is the best hug in the major leagues, right here!" - Swisher Pics

by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Nov 6, 2006 12:19 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

bah
I've heard that before, but I dont believe it.  I grew up in Fremont, the first thing I ever remember that was "somewhat" downtown/urban was a club called "the beat".  It was right on Fremont blvd & Peralta.  I think it was open for like a month before it was shut down because of violence or something like that.  So I doubt Fremont wants to risk its "great city to raise a family" image to accomodate downtown/urban lifestyle image.

I could be very wrong though, I havent lived in Fremont for 8 yrs.

"...we don't score six, seven runs. We score three, four runs and play defense and pitch" - Eric Chavez

by pickinmachine on Nov 6, 2006 1:01 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Totally opposite end of town
For one, that club was in an area of town that has NEVER been very nice. It is close to the Union City and Newark borders, and it is just not a very safe area of town to begin with. Second, that was just one night club that had issues. The Saddle Rack is in the area of town where the Stadium is going to be and I have never heard of them having major issues. <knocks on wood>

They have been talking about having a Downtown near the Hub, which is central Fremont, but they have never been able to get organized enough to make it work. The area where they are building the stadium is a fresh space, open land. Like working on a blank canvase. Which makes it perfect!

"This is the best hug in the major leagues, right here!" - Swisher Pics

by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Nov 6, 2006 1:57 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

hehe
are you saying I grew up in the ghetto?  J/K, I never really thought it was that bad though.

Never been to the Saddle Rack, but I'll take your word for it.  I hope your right BCG, they really do have a blank canvas to work with, so it should be awesome.

"...we don't score six, seven runs. We score three, four runs and play defense and pitch" - Eric Chavez

by pickinmachine on Nov 6, 2006 4:34 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Not to be taken the wrong way, but
Oakland really has nothing to offer the A's, so I'm pretty happy about the move.  The Oakland fanbase, beyond the minority that frequent this site, just seems apathetic towards the A's.  I'm not even convinced that a new ballpark would have done the trick.  People generally do not like going to Oakland.  The city doesn't offer a whole lot, especially to SF residents.  I'm not sure that Fremont will be better, but at least it doesn't have the same reputation as Oakland.  There's also a lot more money in Silicon Valley than there is in Oakland, which will hopefully help bump up the team's revenue.  As a business decision it's hard to fault the owners for wanting out of Oakland.  Maybe for sentimental reasons, but that seems to be the only reasons.
A kitten bats around a ball of yarn but what he's really saying is, "You know I can't knit, motherf'er." That is one foul mouthed kitten. - Mitch Hedberg

by RayRay59 on Nov 6, 2006 12:21 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

It's true
People I think will be happier going to a subruban stadium then the industrial wasteland. And the money that will pour in from silicon valley will be a huge boon for the A's and means more money to spend on keeping the team competetive.

by darooster on Nov 6, 2006 12:26 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I suspect that Wolff and Fremont will...
work hand-in-hand to assure that there are lots of entertaining pre and post-game venues available to game attendees.

Unlike Oakland, those looking for a nice restaurant or bar will be able to find one within walking distance of the new stadium.

"When I got injured, I felt disrespected. Waaannnh!" - Mark Kotsay

by FoolshGame22 on Nov 6, 2006 12:54 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

This is the best possible outcome
Like some have said, let's be realistic. The A's were not going to be able to get a deal done in Oaktown. California has been notoriously bad in terms of building new stadiums (Kings fans in the house?) and it's extremely difficult to get it done. The fact that the A's,
  1. Are staying in the Bay Area
  2. Not moving to Portland or Vegas
  3. Getting a brand new stadium
Are all huge plusses and we should all be ecstatic. I was smiling from ear to ear when I heard this. As a commuting fan from the Stockton area, it makes little difference to me if it's in Fremont or Oakland, and it shouldn't matter to most fans. If an extra 15-20 minutes means a brand new stadium and possibly seeing Swisher, Harden and Chavvy retire as A's, I think it's a sacrifice we will all be more then happy to make. Would you rather commute for less then half an hour or see them move to a different state? No-brainer. The parking lot gridlock will be lessened, concessions will be easier to get to and there will be no Mount Davis to contend with. This is a great day for the A's and for all of us fans.

by darooster on Nov 6, 2006 12:24 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

A's / Angels
Anaheim to Los Angeles = 26.28 Miles

Fremont to Oakland = 26.40 Miles

COME ON, OAKLAND, COME ON!

by Colorado Fan on Nov 6, 2006 1:09 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Detroit to Auburn Hills
33.17 Miles
COME ON, OAKLAND, COME ON!

by Colorado Fan on Nov 6, 2006 1:21 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Carson, CA, where C.D. Chivas USA play...
...to Guadalajara, Mexico:  1,286 miles.

Oakland to Fremont ain't so bad.

If nothing else, he knew how to chew a stick of gum.

by GreenNGoldSooner on Nov 6, 2006 1:46 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Stadium Site
I'm not too familiar with Fremont and I was wondering if anyone knew how close it is to 680.  I'm with you Blez, it seems as if this could make the drive from Sacramento far easier by avoiding the nightmare that is Bay Bridge traffic.  I'm basically wondering if the location is going to be easy to get on/off the freeway like the Coliseum was with 880.  I go to school outside Chicago and driving surface streets to Wrigley is terrible, so I'm hoping we can avoid that.
"That dude's out of his tree." -Zito

by SacTownAthletic on Nov 6, 2006 1:15 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Google map link
Here.

It's around 2 miles from 680 to the ballpark site.

by vertig0 on Nov 6, 2006 1:40 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Isn't there a DUMP right there:
Seriously!!!

Now, the A's offense won't be the only thing stinking until Mid June!!!

http://www.silverandblackpride.com/

by saint on Nov 6, 2006 3:01 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The Dump is in Milpitas
There is about a 5 mile stretch of freeway from the Dump to the Stadium sight. I live about half way inbetween. You cannot smell the dump from my house. It will be fine.

But on warm summer mornings, especially the first weekend in August, you can smell the garlic from Gilroy! It is rather nice!

"This is the best hug in the major leagues, right here!" - Swisher Pics

by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Nov 6, 2006 3:08 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Gilroy, Baby!
As a Gilroy A's fan here, I'm PUMPED UP!!!

If you can imagine the drive from Gilroy to Oakland 10 times a year to take in a game...my attendance just quadrupled in one day.

Now, season tickets are realistic for me, as the drive is under an hour.

I'm sure 10,000 south bay fans like me will be thinking thew same thing.

Oakland had it's chance.  I went to my first game there in 1969.  I'm an A's fan since childhood and still have my 1971 programs.

This move singlehandedly almost doubled their attendance.

This is going to hurt the Giants, who counted on that $80million for San Jose.  People in the south bay don't really think of much of a difference between San Jose and Fremont.  It's all the same thing.  The A's get San Jose for free.  F*** you GIANTS!!!!

by Gain on 10 on Nov 7, 2006 2:41 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

how to do this drive
I have some experience with this commute -- after my kids moved back up to Auburn with their mom, I needed to meet my ex at the Baker's Square in Vacaville and return by going back across the Dumbarton to Menlo Park, passing within a couple miles of the new ballpark spot.
If there's no traffic, I-80 to I-880 is shortest and fastest by about 10 minutes.  
If there's a lot of traffic, 680 to Fremont Blvd. is faster and will keep you saner. That's not to say there can't be traffic on 680 northbound, but it won't be a problem after a night game.
If there's traffic through the maze but 880 is clear, take 680 to 24 and go thru the Caldecott.

by vk on Nov 6, 2006 4:16 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The Coliseum has been dead to me...
...since they put in Mt. Davis.

Throughout the '80s, I used to sit out in the great old left-field bleachers (with a number of future ANers).  That was the Coliseum I loved, a stadium that, despite its multipurpose origins, was a great place to watch a ball game.  But it hasn't existed for years. I can't say I'll much miss today's Mac, though admittedly, I've been living away from the Bay Area for years now, and I've only been to three games in the new configuration.  Still, when I have been to A's home games in recent years, it's always been a little sad.  At any rate, I won't find it hard to say goodbye.

If nothing else, he knew how to chew a stick of gum.

by GreenNGoldSooner on Nov 6, 2006 1:31 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

I'm fine with this
Excited, even, to have the new stadium (eventually.)

I'm really eager to learn two things in the coming months, or perhaps years:

1)What will the public transportation access look like? (I dearly hope for BART, or at least a BART to bus/walk design thats not a headache. (Taking BART into San Francisco and then walking the rest of the way to The Phone Book isn't particularly bad. If it's at least along those lines I'll be alright.

2)What do we call them? I want to see them just stick to being called the Oakland A's. I could live with San Jose A's, and I suppose even East Bay A's. But, as Blez mentioned, nothing silly, and I'd rather them not be the Fremont A's.

there's simply no club like the white elephant club

by walk off bunt on Nov 6, 2006 1:51 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

SHOCKING!
Bart's going to be much tougher to games and 880 traffic around the Fremont area is going to be that much more horrible.

I'm with Blez- at least the A's are still in the East Bay.

Haha, any bets on the Fremont Warriors?

Golden State of Mind : Golden State Warriors news, hype, rumors, humor, science, history, and fashion

by Atma Brother ONE on Nov 6, 2006 1:52 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

The Fremont plan blows
Fremont is a dump and is terribly inconvenient for most Bay Area residents.  It's in no-man's land; worse, there is no practical BART solution.  This location doesn't feel close to anything....other than maybe Fremont. At least Oakland was a qucik BART ride from the SF financial district and many other points in the greater east bay.  And for me, getting to Fremont from Marin on a regular basis is not be possible. Bill King would have resigned on the spot with this announcement.

Though I saw it coming, this is a bad fucking day for a lifelong A's fan with a ton of Coliseum memories before and after the abysmal addition of Mt. Davis.

"We owe it all to one man. And we are all extraneous. 'Billy' has denuded us of ego". Liar's Poker

by Sashulia on Nov 6, 2006 2:02 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Thank you
The A's will lose more fans than they will gain. Either get it done in Oakland or buy out Magowan for Santa Clara County. This compromise is nothing but self serving for Fisher & Wolff.

Fremont folks...best known for Tri City Sporting Goods. That didn't turn out so well.

by southofcruiseamerica on Nov 6, 2006 2:45 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The public transportation
is such a huge element for the existing population of A's fans, forcing fans to drive is going to make that ugly section of the freeway even uglier and really hurt a LOT of fans... Of course, I doubt Lew cares, he'll be counting the parking cash.

The lack of decent public transportation just kills me on this issue. Two miles to Warm Springs BART will be damn FAR.

It just seems like a sign that Lew's going to choke us with ticket and parking costs.

"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."

by Kyli on Nov 6, 2006 2:57 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Fremont is a dump?
Have you seen the Consolidated Colloids or whatever industrial wasteland you have to cross on the BART bridge?
Stat Wonk Futurist

by salb918 on Nov 6, 2006 3:54 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I agree on the public transportation issue
...but you don't know what Bill King would have done. Let's not invoke his name just to make a particular point.

by snowflake on Nov 6, 2006 4:51 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

If I were a betting monkey ...
... I'd plunk down a chunk of change on Wolffisher changing it to the South Bay A's.

My reasoning:

  • "Fremont" adds precisely nothing to the marketing value of the team (which would, not to get all reztips, probably be an improvement over the negative connotations of "Oakland")
  • "Silicon Valley" is both geographically incorrect and is likely to incur the wrath of Magowan
  • "Oakland," as stated above, is probably gone, less for reasons of geography than for the negative connotations it brings to the minds of the intended audience demographic
  • "Golden State" I would guess has little chance, as (a) the Warriors don't have enough of a crossover audience with the A's or the target demographic, (b) still retains implicit assocations with Oakland, (c) has no real chance of building a geographic affinity (who inside the state actually ever calls CA "The Golden State"?)
  • "East Bay" has the geographic affinity and actual geogrpahy going for it -- but excludes San Jose and environs from the geographic target
  • "San Francisco Bay"/"... Area" would probably get Magowan's knickers in a twist, and would reinforce the "San Jose = 2nd-tier city" messaging
"South Bay A's" has the advantages of being geographically accurate, of having the potential to build geographic affinity, of including San Jose and Silicon Valley in the targeted geographic affinity group, of not linguistically infringing on any imagined Giants territory, of divorcing the team from association with the city of Oakland -- and of allowing for an eventual move to another site if the owners (Wolffisher or subsequent owners) so desire.
but jesus--rhyming is a pain in the ass! -- Rubin Sierra @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 6, 2006 2:06 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

but it's awful
"Having a vote for 'most clutch' baseball player is like having a vote for 'most real' monster." - Ken Tremendous

by ArakSOT on Nov 6, 2006 2:11 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

well, yeah
I'm not saying I think it's poetic -- just that it seems to me to be the appellation most likely to support the new marketing plan postrelo.
but jesus--rhyming is a pain in the ass! -- Rubin Sierra @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 6, 2006 2:12 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Lots of good points ...
I think, though, they may choose to keep "Oakland" so as not to piss off to many of their existing fans, but remove it almost entirely from their marketing.

eg - Buy your 2011 season tickets for the World Champion A's today and guarantee your chance to enjoy the game in their wonderful new park in Fremont ... just a 20 minute drive from your home in San Jose, Walnut Creek, Palo Alto or the East Bay ... yada yada yada

by devo on Nov 6, 2006 2:14 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Monk
   You forgot Alameda Athletics, which dows not connote specific (potentially negative) affiliations with Oakland from a marketing standpoint. It encompasses all of Alameda which from a name standpoint speaks to a larger demographic.

   I still think it remains Oakland, just b/c of the rich baseball heritage we've seen for decades now.

   San Jose Athletics totally pisses on MaGowan but I wouldn't put it past Wolff as this will be used to attract large amount of silicon $$$.

   I think we should name the team the "MonkeyBay Athletics"

"I've been accused of using too many words...I suppose that's like accusing Mozart of using too many notes." Bill King

by Gerard on Nov 6, 2006 2:15 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

spelling error
.."which does not connote"...sorry
"I've been accused of using too many words...I suppose that's like accusing Mozart of using too many notes." Bill King

by Gerard on Nov 6, 2006 2:17 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

don't underestimate Magowan
There's no way in hell Magowan lets the A's rename themselves with any combination or elements of "San Jose," "Silicon Valley," or "San Francisco Bay/Area" -- not without a huge payoff. And if Wolffisher can achieve the same basic marketing target without the payoff, they will. "South Bay," I think, does that.

You and devo have a good point that ownership may not wish to alienate the preexisting fanbase by ditching "Oakland" -- but then again, they've always been much more forward-looking than backward-looking ... and they haven't hesitated to do things (such as tarping the 3rd deck) that were in their long-term interest but that also were unpopular with the established fanbase.

As for "Alameda" -- again, it specifically excludes San Jose/SCC. It also draws the geography too tightly, without having the communal rallying point of a signature urban location.

but jesus--rhyming is a pain in the ass! -- Rubin Sierra @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 6, 2006 2:35 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Doesn't much matter
Moreno set the precedent, and he has an even weaker case than the Dodgers did, because he's not using any part of another team's name.  Magowan can cry all he wants, but the A's can call themselves whatever they want.
"Next thing you know, they'll have me taking an overdose of pills."--Milton Bradley

by jeepers on Nov 6, 2006 2:38 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Dodgers didn't have territorial rights
And Moreno wasn't sued by the Dodgers, but by the City of Anaheim for an unrelated supposed contractual commitment.
but jesus--rhyming is a pain in the ass! -- Rubin Sierra @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 6, 2006 2:51 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Ah, that's right.
I thought the Dodgers protested too, but were quickly dismissed; I could be wrong about that.
"Next thing you know, they'll have me taking an overdose of pills."--Milton Bradley

by jeepers on Nov 6, 2006 2:54 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The Dodgers are still protesting
in their own way. On the Dodger Stadium scoreboard, the Angels' abbreviation is still ANA and the team is called "Angels of Anaheim".

by socal on Nov 6, 2006 3:44 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

They changed it
As of May 2006 - it says LAA at Dodger Stadium.

Dodgers and Angels SHARE Los Anegles County as territory (Autry paid O'Malley quie handsomely for the privilege), hence the inability for the Dodgers to do anything about the name change (other than pout).

by RevHalofan on Nov 6, 2006 7:13 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

His legal standing would have to be based on
what the TR's actually say.  I beleive that teams are allowed to market themselves anywhere they wish, without restriction.  The rights themselves apply only to physical location.  I don't think Mcgowan would have a defensable legal position.  
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Nov 6, 2006 2:44 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

maybe yes, maybe no
No one involved wants legal action -- from Bud on down. The TR's themselves may not actually be legally enforceable, but the club that is MLB will honor them in order to keep its members from resorting to the legal system.

You could be right -- but I strongly suspect that whether the geographic naming rights are written down or not, Magowan would cause enough problems for Seligula and his cronies that they'd preemptively put the kibosh on any usurpation of Giant-territory place names.

but jesus--rhyming is a pain in the ass! -- Rubin Sierra @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 6, 2006 2:55 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

If you're right...
I think it makes the "Silicon Valley A's" more likely. It would be pretty difficult for Magowan to sue for infringement of territory rights when Silicon Valley isn't even a real place.
I miss Bill King :(

by gojohn10 on Nov 6, 2006 3:13 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I can certainly see your reasoning,
but I really think it would be Mcgowan who would be on the defensive end with the other owners.  His "rights" were not challenged, and they are actually being enforced as written.  The other owners are not going to view him infringing on Wolfe's "rights" with favor.  And this would have to be the venue for him to make his case, because the MLB charter forbids owners/teams from filing suit against each other.  

I suspect the Mcgowan has backed himself into a corner with his insistence on his "rights".  He gets to bear the full brunt of competetion with the A's without the benefit of being bought out.  He may have screwed the Giants over for years to come.  

"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Nov 6, 2006 3:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm still betting on San Jose A's
Or perhaps "the San JosA's," largely for the reasons you list in your original post, which work for San Jose as easy as they do for "South Bay," and without the clunky placelessness problem.

Remember that MLB owners are prohibited from suing one another, so McGowan can't even use that threat if/when Wolffish try to stake out the SJ name.  MLB doesn't even need to force owners to follow that rule...it's in the constitution, as it were.

I threw that horseshoe into the weeds to see what luck can bring

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Nov 6, 2006 3:41 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

While the NFL had no say with...
...2 teams from NY playing in NJ, Moreno indeed set the precedent. The only payoff to MaGowan would have been wether a stadium was built in Santa Clara Co. At this point all moot.
"I've been accused of using too many words...I suppose that's like accusing Mozart of using too many notes." Bill King

by Gerard on Nov 6, 2006 2:56 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

That repeated "-ay A's"
sounds clumsy though.

The South B'A's ? Then someone would inevitably end up going all Tampa on us and we'd end up as the S-B'A's.

Oh the places you'll go, the punctuation you'll see ...

"Even if you know the deck is stacked in your favor, you still have to have the discipline to trust the math and the cojones to go to the ATM." BB

by green star oakland on Nov 6, 2006 2:21 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The Giants' rights...
probably extend only to territory.  Unless the name somehow infringes the Giants' protected marks, I doubt they have a legal pot to be pissed-off in.  

There's little doubt this new stadium will cost them value, but hey--maybe MLB will take a cue from the PGA and start a real Senior Circuit.  The Gig-aunties are built for just such a league.

The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus

by The Dogfather on Nov 6, 2006 2:22 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The San Jos A's?
That is all.  
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus

by The Dogfather on Nov 7, 2006 11:41 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Blame Oakland Politicians..
for the loss of the A's. It's totally upsurd that the A's don't have a Giants (sorry) type ballpark on the water in Oakland.

Celebrate the fact that the A's will remain in the Bay Area. Remember not too long ago, small market teams were candidates to be moved or disbanded.

At least we have a Bay Area community, not far from Oakland, with the guts and committment to getting a new stadium deal put together.

Who's ready to buy a condo that is sure to be a part of the plan?

by TahoeDon on Nov 6, 2006 2:11 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

It's not ubsurd ...
where on the water would you have put it? On Army land near the port? There's no room to develop around it -- nor would anyone want to live that close to the port and it's barely even waterfront and transportation would be a nightmare, especially for folks coming from outside of Oakland.
Oak to 9th? The site is barely large enough to fit the park. It doesn't have enough transportation access for 10k residents, much less 40k fans. It's also terribly expensive to build there.
Across from the current site? It's a marsh and would have significant environmental problems and tons of costs associated with them.

The only real chance was the uptown site -- and Jerry Brown let that slip away, but once he did there wasn't much that could be done.

by devo on Nov 6, 2006 2:20 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Am I missing something?
What makes anyone think there is corporate money willing to invest in a luxury box in Fremont?  Lew Wolff has made a lot more in real estate than I could ever hope to you - but he is sooooooooo wrong about Fremont.  

To attract corporate entertainment dollars, the event, the happening, the thing - it needs to be cool.  What company would risk taking clients to a place that isn't cool.  And there is nothing about Fremont that is cool. Companies may plop down for tickets/boxes for one year.  When they realize they can't give away their tickets to respectable clients (due to Fremont being a cesspool), they will not pay again.

"We owe it all to one man. And we are all extraneous. 'Billy' has denuded us of ego". Liar's Poker

by Sashulia on Nov 6, 2006 2:16 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

You are being very offensive, sir
I don't know what you have against Fremont, but you need to relax. There are a number of people on this site that live there and love it! I have lived in Fremont my whole life, with the exception of a few years in college, and I happen to love living in Fremont.

I don't know if you have ever been to Fremont, but one thing it is NOT is a cesspool. It is a very lovely, safe and warm town. So please stop insulting my home the way you have in your last two comments.  

"This is the best hug in the major leagues, right here!" - Swisher Pics

by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Nov 6, 2006 2:22 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Well since you put it that way.....
My apologies for insults directed at your hometown. As I noted, something very dear to me personally will die on the day the A's play their last game in Oakland and I am not happy they are going to Fremont. Yes, I can see how the descriptions of Fremont were offensive and with benefit of hindsight, I would not have used those adjectives again.  But (and you knew the 'but' was coming), I stand by comments about the lack of BART, the poor geography, and the  prediction that the long term corporate money will simply not be there, largely because of the geography.  Emotions aside, I believe the move to Fremont is a bad decision by the A's owners.  
"We owe it all to one man. And we are all extraneous. 'Billy' has denuded us of ego". Liar's Poker

by Sashulia on Nov 6, 2006 3:16 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Thank you for your apology
I appreciate that. I feel the same way you do, something very dear to me will die also the day they play their last home game in Oakland. The Coliseum has been my second home for the better part of my 25 years. So I completely understand those feelings of disappointment and frustration. I do wish they could have worked it out to stay in Oakland, but if that was just not in the cards, Fremont is the next logical solution, and the next best way to keep the bulk of the fan base.

I have to disagree with you on the lack of the corporate dollar. I think there will be MORE due to the proximity to Silicon Valley. The first, largest, and most obvious corporation that will be HIGHLY invested will be Cisco. I could see many others getting involved as well, such as, Texas Instruments, Adobe, Yahoo, Google, E-Bay and many others. They are all based in Santa Clara/San Jose/Silicon Valley area and I believe they would be on board immediately. I think the geography of Fremont actually makes those types of things MORE convinient for South Bay Corporations. Many businesses go to SF to see the Giants, but if given the choice, they would go to Fremont first.

My company for example has a program we call "Baseball with the Boss" where the CEO will take a handful of employees to a game once a month. They get a little suite, food, and a limo ride. If the game was right up the street, they would be more likely to go to an A's game.

We will get a large number of cross over corporate dollars due to companies that would rather go to the near by, new, A's stadium than travel all the way up to SF! Silicon Valley is a large, untapped resource. And with Fremont right there, they can take full advantage of that. Which I believe, is the primary reason for chosing Fremont for the new location.

As for the BART thing, I have a feeling Lew has a plan for it. I don't think that he is going to let it slide by the way it is now. I don't know what that plan is, but he was so adimate about BART being part of the new sight, I don't think that will change just because we are moving to Fremont. I think he has something up his sleeve and we just have to wait and find out what that might be.

I realize that just because I am totally stoked about this, that doesn't mean everyone is. But I do hope that everyone understands that if Oakland is NOT an option, then this really is best for the team overall. If it is either Fremont or Portland/Vegas, we should be counting our blessings that Fremont will work out!

"This is the best hug in the major leagues, right here!" - Swisher Pics

by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Nov 6, 2006 3:44 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I have to disagree
with your post about Fremont being the second best option in comparison to Oakland.  If Fremont is second best, it's only to San Jose proper.  That was non starter from the beginning due to the Territorial Rights issues that our NL brethren from the north were so adamant about maintaining.  Fremont itself has always been the superior choice to Oakland.  For all the reasons you mentioned.  Corporate dollars.  They will flow and flow to the A's coffers.  I find it stunning that some folks can't see it.  Already the A's have CISCO on board.  How big a deal do you think the A's recieved for the naming rights alone?  How much more do you think is lined up already?  None of this really all that complicated, as long as you follow the money.  And the dollars are in Fremont/San Jose.  
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Nov 6, 2006 4:00 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

and thank you for reminding me
that (a.) real people actual read the drivel I post here from time to time (b.) it's better to use the AN board to exchange opinions, thoughts and ideas about the best franchise of all time rather than use it for primal screaming therapy (which I also need from time to time).
"We owe it all to one man. And we are all extraneous. 'Billy' has denuded us of ego". Liar's Poker

by Sashulia on Nov 6, 2006 6:11 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

And how much are the corporate dollars paying in..
...Oakland right now?

Fremont is an upgrade alone just because it can't get any worse.  But I think Fremont will work beyond anyone's imagination.

Lance Armstrong can make homophobic jokes on ESPN, yet Harold Reynolds pays the ultimate price? Explain that to me.

by gmoneymcg on Nov 6, 2006 3:09 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Cool?
What makes a stadium cool is what is in and around it.  Cisco and the A's seem to be working to make the inside "cool" and the outside's "coolness" is dependent on the businesses flourishing around it.  Businesses seem to be picking up in the Pacific Commons area and will probably grow with news of a stadium.
Also, there are quite a few corporations in Fremont, Union City, Newark, and Milpitas.  That doesn't include the businesses that are in San Jose as well.  On the business side, this seems to be a winning situation for the A's.
Emotionally, I can see your point.  But I like this better than Portland, Vegas, or even Sacramento (sorry, that's more from my point of view).

by nateboegel on Nov 6, 2006 3:51 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Napa Hike
Fremont adds 40 miles (roundtrip) to my drive to see the A's (50 miles vs. 70 miles each way). Avoiding the maze is a plus--but for weekend games (most of the games I attend) I'm looking at 20 extra minutes each way. Jury is still out but I think a few fans get really screwed here--those local to Oakland and those in the North Bay--including the 101 corridor.
This is a game to be savored, not gulped. There's time to discuss everything between pitches or between innings. ~Bill Veeck

by Steve in Napa on Nov 6, 2006 2:20 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

The plan will not work for everyone...
...someone is going to get screwed here.  There is no plan that will make everyone happy.

Bottom line: does it help your team stay competitve?  If the answer is yes, then it's a good plan.  DO NOT look at this from your own personal viewpoint, because if you would rather have the A's stay in Oakland, at the Coliseum, and continue the same way they have been because McAfee is "easier" for you, then... oh... I better stop here before I really ruffle feathers.

Lance Armstrong can make homophobic jokes on ESPN, yet Harold Reynolds pays the ultimate price? Explain that to me.

by gmoneymcg on Nov 6, 2006 3:11 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Exactly
You are right on here.  It is hard for me to see the downside, for example, seeing as how I am from Union City.  This is great for me.  The biggest downside for me is that the A's are physically leaving Oakland which changes things.  However, I do see that it is better than Portland, Vegas, or even Sacramento.  There still is a connection with the East Bay.  There still is a connection with Alameda County.  And people who claim Fremont doesn't fit with either of those needs to really think things through.  I've always felt a strong connection to both the East Bay and Alameda County even though I live in South County. (Just ask the Jury summoner who always has me go up to Oakland!)

by nateboegel on Nov 6, 2006 3:52 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Santa Rosa hike!!!
yeah...the North Bay fans are getting screwed. Of course all the South Bay and South Alameda fans are happy. This will add another 1/2 hr at least to our commute (a lot more with traffic). What if the roles were reversed and some strange twist of faith the A's moved to the North Bay. I think the A's fans in the South Bay would be griping big time. Of course I'll still go to games and the A's will be (hopefully) stay competitive with this move...weekday evening games are probably out though. Right now it takes an hour to get home from an evening game at best...add 30-45 minutes on top of that...makes for a tough next morning.

by Eric95403 on Nov 7, 2006 2:59 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Once again...
...someone is going to get screwed here.

If the A's thought that Santa Rosa was the best place for the ballpark in term of demographics and corporate dollars, then I'm all for it.  Yes it would be a bigger pain in the ass for me, but I would rather travel a little farther to see my favorite team that is doing something to try and improve their product rather than sit on their hands.

Lance Armstrong can make homophobic jokes on ESPN, yet Harold Reynolds pays the ultimate price? Explain that to me.

by gmoneymcg on Nov 8, 2006 5:15 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Those 40 miles...
its adding to your commute, are being subtracted from mine. From 90 miles each way down to 70.

I'd rather drive the 90.

by BleacherDave on Nov 7, 2006 3:35 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Sory but How Exactly Did Al Davis Screw The City?
If you want someone to blame for the bad Raiders deal look no further than the politicians in Oakland who drew up that plan some ten years ago.  I'm not here to defend Al Davis, but that whole PSL, tax dollar use, screwup was hatched by local politicians.  Not the Raiders.  The same ones who blew every chance they had to keep the A's in Oakland.
~This is a simple game...You throw the ball, you hit the ball, you catch the ball. YOU GOT IT!?!

by BornInOakland on Nov 6, 2006 2:20 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

What's In a Name?
My guess is
  1. Oakland A's
  2. Bay Area A's
I think they stick with the Oakland A's. Too much change at one time can be a negative. Unless however, the Fremont people made a name change part of the deal, which I doubt.

The only reason I mention the "Bay Area's A's" is that it's been my experience that when you mention that you are from the "Bay Area" most people in the USA think of The San Francisco Bay Area as opposed to the areas of "Tampa Bay" or "Green Bay" or whatever.I want the name to be Oakland A's but I do think it's kind of classy and prideful to be known as the "Bay Area A's".

by TahoeDon on Nov 6, 2006 2:23 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

How about the Bay A's
I like the assonance...
Friends don't let friends read HalosHeaven

by BruceBochte on Nov 6, 2006 2:28 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

<checks out Pelosi's butt>
but jesus--rhyming is a pain in the ass! -- Rubin Sierra @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 6, 2006 2:36 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

lol, politics again?
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Nov 6, 2006 2:46 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Oakland Athletics of Fremont?
Ridiculous name. But this new stadium should be great.
Let's GO OAKLAND!!!

by OaktownRajah on Nov 6, 2006 2:24 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

I blame Oakland politicians

The writing was on the wall the day those numbskulls gave Al Davis the moon.

Bunch of clowns cost Oaktown its pride and joy!

Friends don't let friends read HalosHeaven

by BruceBochte on Nov 6, 2006 2:26 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Devo
All of your comments are valid. And I'm sure that the same comments were made by many others, prior to building PacBell.

I just find it very hard to believe that a site couldn't have been found along the Oakland estuary, Jack London, Alameda or near the port that would have been viable. The issue of wanting and needing a new home for the A's goes back umteen years. This ain't a new problem. It's one that should have been solved many years ago when land options were more readily available.

Thanks for your comments.

by TahoeDon on Nov 6, 2006 2:33 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

the problem isn't new ...
but the real possibility for investment is realtively new.

Ten years ago no one wanted to develop Oakland -- all of that money was going to the 'burbs. There was no money moving around to help with the construction of the new park. Anything that happened would have been a pure outlay by the team and/or the city. In that atmosphere, it was very unlikely anything would get done.

The big problem with a waterfront ballpark is that Oakland still has a working waterfront. Unlike San Francisco, whose waterfront hasn't been used for anything except tourists in decades, Oakland as one of the largest ports in the country, as well as the airport, taking up a huge portion of the waterfront. Also, I doubt an estuary front ballpark would have really had the much appeal, which eliminates everything not in the immediate vacinity of the port.

PacBell was a very different situation. They had a perfect geographic location, that was almost completely unused. It's a lot easier to find nice waterfront property in a city that is surrounded on three sides by water and has almost no port facilities of any relevence. Most of the business operating on the waterfront are just there because of the cheap warehouse space. In Oakland, the waterfront is already one of the most effectively used parts of the city, in San Francisco, it was one of the least.

What would have made a lot more sense is a downtown stadium, since Oakland's downtown (unlike San Francisco) is one of the least effectively used parts of the city.

I agree that there were opportunities (or at least opportunity) -- I just think that a waterfront park is a combination of wishful thinking and an eagerness to keep up with the Giantses ...

by devo on Nov 6, 2006 2:51 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Good. Closer to me.
I hope they keep the "Oakland" name, though...

by Poppy on Nov 6, 2006 2:42 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

My opinion on this? Good.
I don't think the city of Oakland has done nearly enough to keep the A's within city limits. I understand fanbase issue. I understand choosing to go with housing over entertainment. I also understand mayors like Jerry Brown don't really give a damn about sports and can't see the importance of professional sports as an outlet for fans to come out and enjoy something together.

The problem is the city has been burned in the past and most of that is thanks to Al Davis and the Raiders. Yet, they welcomed Davis back with open arms about a decade ago. Meanwhile, the A's have put out a much better overall product for years - the best in the East Bay by far when compared to the Warriors and Raiders (the Sharks are South Bay) and they can't get anywhere on a new ballpark in Oakland.

Maybe they don't REALLY need one. Enough people have said they do that there have been threats of contraction or a move in the past. At least if Fremont happens, we get a new ballpark and we keep the A's in the Bay Area. Fremont is 27 miles from Oakland and I live almost right between the two. It won't make it any harder for ME to go to games and the A's want a piece of that South Bay pie. There's still a big corporate influence down there and that means more money for a team.

I hope it works. A's baseball in Fremont is far better than no A's baseball in the East Bay at all. It's also a little weird. I remember when my brother and I were kids and my father took us to the Baylands racetrack. To go to A's games in the same area some 25 years later? Feels strange.

Bottom of the 9th - Baseball photojournalism by James Venes

by Flashfire on Nov 6, 2006 3:10 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

The South Bay Pie
Is that gonna be Lew's new WNBA franchise?
but jesus--rhyming is a pain in the ass! -- Rubin Sierra @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 6, 2006 3:21 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

on the subject of teams outside of their area
Another big outsider is the Miami Dolphins, they play about 30-45 minutes north of Miami.  That doubles for the Marlins as well.  WHen in reality fremont is only a few bart stops down the line.  I am happy that we get a new stadium!

by sdawg11 on Nov 6, 2006 3:11 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

And how effective is that for the Marlins...
...struggling to get fans to the stadium, even when they were winning World Series titles.

That park makes sense for the Dolphins: games are mostly on Sunday's when there is no rush hour traffic.  For the Marlins it just never makes sense.

Lance Armstrong can make homophobic jokes on ESPN, yet Harold Reynolds pays the ultimate price? Explain that to me.

by gmoneymcg on Nov 6, 2006 3:15 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Whoever said Fremont was 35 miles...
...from Oakland must've been traveling by way of Antioch.  The Coliseum is in south Oakland now--if the new site is more than 15 miles from there I'll be surprised.  But I can't get a good Mapquesty address for the site.  Does anyone have an intersection or exit I could use?  BCG?  

Thanks.

The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus

by The Dogfather on Nov 6, 2006 3:37 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

AutoMall
It is exactly 23.8 Miles from the new sight to the Coliseum.
"This is the best hug in the major leagues, right here!" - Swisher Pics

by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Nov 6, 2006 3:47 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Hope this works!
Map that I hope gives you an idea!
"This is the best hug in the major leagues, right here!" - Swisher Pics

by BobbyCrosbysGirl on Nov 6, 2006 3:50 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Thank you, m'dear.
You and Bobby Crosby are all-stars and scholars.  Your children will all be above average.  But Nick Swisher is a goofball.  

Go BLUE!    

The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus

by The Dogfather on Nov 6, 2006 4:04 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

more good news
Getting a new stadium was necessary, and I'm glad the team stayed in Oakland.

Yes, yes, I know. To those of you on the home front it seems like they're moving "away", but to those of us looking from 800 miles away, they haven't left town at all. So now they're 20 miles down the street. No big deal. It still means when I go back to visit my friends in Oakland I'll be able to see a home A's game. Not like if they were moving to Las Vegas or something.

What town they're in makes less difference than things like how well the BART will connect to the stadium, how efficient the parking lot is, etc.

"...but we're also always open to hearing about other sandwiches if it can make our lunch better." -- Nico, channeling Billy Beane

by iglew on Nov 6, 2006 3:42 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

the a's are stupid
thats about the only way to put it. the a's front office is completely stupid. they let one of the most valuable assets in baseball go. they are really really stupid. there is no way we can hire another manager who would be anywhere near the same level as washington. the a's front office made the biggest mistake in years.

by Rx31 on Nov 6, 2006 3:50 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

second-biggest mistake in years ...
... was posting that comment in the new-stadium/A's-move-to-Fremont diary.
but jesus--rhyming is a pain in the ass! -- Rubin Sierra @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 6, 2006 4:22 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

The reality is and always has been
that neither the Oakland nor SF residents are the ones that support the team, same is true of the 49ers and Raiders, Warriors for that matter.  It is the residents in Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara and all the outlying counties from which the fan base comes so locating in Oakland or Fremont is academic.  Lew recognizes that his success is based on how well he can get the fans in and out of the stadium, both by freeway and hopefully mass transit. Fans are used to traveling some distance and time to go to a game, it is how easily that is done which will be the most important.  San Jose has a larger population base than either SF or Oakland, his chances are better in Fremont.

by china bob on Nov 6, 2006 3:55 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

china bob, agree
with every word on this issue. To me this is a no-brainer. We know all the reasons why they need a new ballpark and why this is the best available location.

by Salvatore on Nov 6, 2006 4:38 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

you make your destiny
The current and immediate past A's ownership has always wanted to leave Oakland. there were certainly some missed opportunities to build a ballpark in Oakland, but it's inaccurate to place that on solely on the politicians.

To build a ballpark in an area so far away from public transportation (the most optimistic Warm Springs BART projections don't have it open before 2013, and that's assuming many hurdles including financial are met -- and even then it won't be near the ballpark), and so far from the center of the Bay Area fanbase for the A's, means some pretty gnarly 880 traffic for fans who can drive or are willing to do so. It also may mean assuming that the decrease in fan attendance from the farther reaches will be made up by new and increased southern fan base attendance (or maybe fan numbers aren't as important?)

All I can say is "Good Luck". I can tell you I won't be going to many games to a ballpark that I cannot reasonably reach via public transportation.

As for Wash: I'm happy for him, and feel the Rangers made a good choice. His loss to the A's will be significant.

by OaklandSi on Nov 6, 2006 4:25 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

How about
Bucking trend and going with:

"A's of the Bay".

Oh god that is lame.  I just dont get why they have to be named after the city in whcih they play.  When reading box scrores, am I uncertain which A's are being referenced?

by mikedaviswhereareyou on Nov 6, 2006 4:43 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

As one who grew up in Oakland
As somebody who grew up in Oakland this is bad news to me.  I certainly understand Wolff's reasoning but none the less this hurts me to hear.  

As a young teen I would take bart to games by myself and I have many many memories of sitting in the wooden bleachers....

This just makes me sad...

A part of me, a part of my youth, is going to die when the A's say goodbye to Oakland for the last time.

Rickey Henderson: 35, 24, hall of fame!

by Athletics fan and runner on Nov 6, 2006 4:44 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Sympathize greatly...
Athletics fan and runner. You were and still are one of the Oakland A's greatest loyal and valuable fans.

by Salvatore on Nov 6, 2006 4:59 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

A few thoughts
I don;t know how many of you, if any, have been to PNC Park in Pittsburgh....but it's absolutely GORGEOUS. Therefore, I do not feel that bad about our Oakland Athletics playing in a gorgeous stadium like that.

San Jose Athletics sounds realllly cheesy. I hope it's still Oakland. fremont Athletics sounds okay, but then people would go "where the hell is Fremont?" It's sounds very Double A-esque

And one more thing, is there any water ways in Fremont to where we can have the awesomeness of a splash down homerun? I would love to see Milton crush some shots into that pond

by WhatElse on Nov 6, 2006 4:44 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

again as one who grew up in oakland
the blow would be softened a little bit if they kept the name "Oakland"........  Really, I could see them keeping the name and just de-emphasising it in their marketing.  
Rickey Henderson: 35, 24, hall of fame!

by Athletics fan and runner on Nov 6, 2006 4:47 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

I agree with Oakland Si
a move to Fremont essentially signals the end for me as an A's fan.  I haven't even been to Fremont more than a handful of times in my life, and I won't battle 880 for a baseball game.  Born and raised in Oakland, the bulk of their appeal is centered around pride in my hometown roots.  They leave, I leave, simple as that.  I'm not a fairweather fan, either, just one whose time has come and gone I guess.  I'll be an Oakland A's fan for as long as they represent my hometown, but as soon as I hear the announcement of the Fremont move I'll be cheering the youth movement in SF.  That's right, the Giants.  Say what you want about them, but they moved from SF to SF.  They also have the Junior Giants baseball league inspires passion and fandom in the middle-class kids from a young age.  And which kids will support the A's, a bunch of rich kids from Alamo using Daddy's corporate tickets?  I'll have no problem rooting for Noah Lowery, Matt Cain and Tim Lincecum.  

by iceplant on Nov 6, 2006 4:51 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Traitor!
Go away from my window.
The A's success should surprise no one. They're a much better team than people give them credit for. -- Joe Morgan

by BubbaDude on Nov 6, 2006 4:56 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

wow, really?
you'd leave the A's to root for the giants instead if they move?? i mean, come on, it's still the same TEAM but in a different location.

i've grown up loving the OAKLAND A's too but just because their name is changing doesn't mean i'm going to stop rooting for chavvy, swish,  huston, harden, etc.

by gotgreen on Nov 6, 2006 4:58 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

South Bay A's fans
I live in Mountain View and drive north on 880 for the games I go to and I don't look forward to the drive either. I think you need to look into the Giants fan base a little more to understand the corporate credit card impact that is occurring over there.

by Cherry22 on Nov 6, 2006 5:05 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Iceplant:
I can understand why you'd stop being an A's fan as soon as they stop playing in Oakland. The part I don't understand is where you say you abandon the team "as soon as I hear the announcement".  The announcement will be next week, but the team doesn't actually leave town for three years.

That means the A's are playing in Oakland for three more seasons.  Why not respect those three seasons?  Remain an A's fan for as long as they're in Oakland. Then when they actually move, THEN switch to the Giants.

"...but we're also always open to hearing about other sandwiches if it can make our lunch better." -- Nico, channeling Billy Beane

by iglew on Nov 7, 2006 1:02 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

If they only could pick up Stanford
as a sponsor, they could be the Stanford-Cisco A's and just hope people say it fast and get confused..
Certum est quod certum reddi potest.

by oblique on Nov 6, 2006 4:57 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

LOL
How about if they only hire middle-aged bad dancers who have been kicked out of karaoke bars: the banned-for-disco A's.
but jesus--rhyming is a pain in the ass! -- Rubin Sierra @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 6, 2006 5:03 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Devo...
Good response, good points.

by TahoeDon on Nov 6, 2006 5:04 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Some of these responses are ridiculous
If you can't suck it up through some traffic, or are simply that loyal to the city of Oakland, you aren't a true fan of this team, and you won't be missed. I really can't put it any more kindly. I mean I'm sorry to sound harsh, but I'm a diehard A's fan. What goes in front of that A's name is important to me, but not nearly as important as the A's itself. Coming from Vallejo, this will be more difficult, but I'll do it, because I love this team.  I imagine everyone else who loves this team as opposed to, say, the city of Oakland, or their own convenience, would feel the same way.

Not to say people aren't perfectly within their rights to complain, but, "I'm through with this team," over this is stupid. Plain and simple.

there's simply no club like the white elephant club

by walk off bunt on Nov 6, 2006 5:11 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

This does seem to be a tempest in a teacup.
For all the fans who are inconvienced slightly, there are an equal amount, if not more, who are slightly convienenced by this move.  As for overall fan impact, this could be considered a push.  What will have more impact than anything else will be the new pricing structure.  That my friends, is going to get us all.  
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Nov 6, 2006 5:20 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

As a college student
I only have the budget to get around to a dozen or so games a summer anyway, so I'll have no problem on 880 those few times I have to rough it. In the meantime, I'll watch em on TV and listen to em on the radio just as I always have.
there's simply no club like the white elephant club

by walk off bunt on Nov 6, 2006 7:35 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Gawd...
I hope your a better student than that.  The new park won't be ready for at least three years. ;)
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Nov 6, 2006 7:38 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Hahaha
Perhaps not bad student, but a freshman.

Also a journalism major, so that small budget figures to last quite a long time.

there's simply no club like the white elephant club

by walk off bunt on Nov 6, 2006 8:26 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Bottom line questions
  1. Will the move to Fremont result in more revenue for the team?
  2. Will the team get a higher payroll?
  3. Will the new stadium have less foul territory?
  4. Will the new stadium offer garlic fries and good beer?
  5. Will the Oakland A's of Fremont win the World Series in its first three years in the new park?
  6. Will the whining ever cease?
Running an MLB team is a business, and a good location is a key part of the calculus. I'm glad Mr. Wolff and them are making moves to improve the franchise, so I'll looking forward happily to opening day in Fremont.
The A's success should surprise no one. They're a much better team than people give them credit for. -- Joe Morgan

by BubbaDude on Nov 6, 2006 5:25 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

My bottom line
Will I still be able to get a Saag's Atomic Red Hot in the new ballpark?

by socal on Nov 6, 2006 6:04 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Allure of the Coliseum
Part of the Coliseum's allure is that it is not nice and shiny.  It is familiar and old and ugly.  I do not feel out of place there.

by spicadog on Nov 6, 2006 6:40 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Perhaps you should go shopping for some new...
...clothes then?

: )

Lance Armstrong can make homophobic jokes on ESPN, yet Harold Reynolds pays the ultimate price? Explain that to me.

by gmoneymcg on Nov 8, 2006 5:23 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Since I live in Fremont..
I am very happy about the move. But, it is a good thing for the A's over all. You do have to remember, the Tri City (which is the Fremont, Newark, Union City) area is considered a suburb of Oakland, so they can still be called Oakland. Besides, if the Giants football team can play in a different state then what they are called, I think the A's will keep the name Oakland.

We are only 20 minutes away (without traffic) from Oakland, so its not too far out of the way for people, unlike some has said. The new stadium will be right on 880. It will be short drive from 237 and 580 and you know they will come up with a way, probably a shuttle or, hopefully, a rail system to BART, so getting here shouldn't be a problem. We are a short drive from SJ and Mnt. View area, and I know lots of A's fans there that were hoping they would head to Fremont.

Plus there are already new shopping centers around Fremont and still lots of land to expand in to, so the whole area should be beautiful. The city of Oakland can't offer all of that. There just isn't the room there any longer.

We are lucky for the owner we have. The A's could have easily been sold and moved way out of this area. Let celebrate we still have the A's here and now, we will have more money to contend. And, Billy with more money, THAT makes me excited!

by ChickenStanley on Nov 6, 2006 6:49 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

PSLs?
As a 20-year season ticket holder who goes to 60-70 games a year, I'm concerned about my ability to retain my seat location in the new ballpark.  Currently I sit in 117, 6 rows behind the plate, and I doubt I'll be able to afford the full season when the team moves, especially if they attach a PSL fee to it.  Anybody know what the other "newish" ballparks have done in that regard?  Are PSLs still the name of the game?  
"Put me down and I'll walk off the field." -- Bradley to Macha, 9/06

by skigurl on Nov 6, 2006 6:53 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Excellent question
Unfortunately, I don't think we'll have an answer to that one right away. The only statement Wolff has made about seat licenses in general is that they won't work in Oakland. They probably would work to a limited extent when catering to South Bay clientele.

Most new ballparks have used seat licenses to some degree. A well constructed program can provide up to 10% of the necessary funding.

I wouldn't be too optimistic about keeping those primo seats without a seat license.

by vertig0 on Nov 6, 2006 7:04 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Maybe
I should start selling shares now.  
"Put me down and I'll walk off the field." -- Bradley to Macha, 9/06

by skigurl on Nov 6, 2006 8:38 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Fremont....
is just that much FURTHER from Alaska.
rip 2006, it was nice while it lasted.

by ak_A on Nov 6, 2006 7:09 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Ah-
But if you drive down and take 680, and it could be faster!

by mikeA on Nov 6, 2006 7:16 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

well, no problem then
Let's see six hour ferry trip with car to nearest road at $175.00 one way....then an 1,858 mile road trip one way 32.5 hours of driving.  Where as before, Mcafee, it was 1,843 miles....but maybe quicker by doing 680 with traffic considerations of the other route.
rip 2006, it was nice while it lasted.

by ak_A on Nov 6, 2006 7:30 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

When is Alaska
going to get a big sports team? Can they support one--maybe a hockey team?

by Salvatore on Nov 6, 2006 7:39 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

maybe late in this century.
rip 2006, it was nice while it lasted.

by ak_A on Nov 6, 2006 7:41 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

heh
"We don't want haddock and chips, we want cod. In cod we trust." --Ghostigital, the pride of Iceland

by Cutthemullet on Nov 6, 2006 11:51 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

good bye A's, and everyone here
This is the worst year Oakland has probably had...even more so than the year of the quake or the firestorm.
After the NHL Seals and then the Raiders (at the time), it is the A's turn to leave.
That only leaves the Warriors, who aren't even given Oakland in their name.

   Who do we blame????

   The Oakland City leaders?  --yes
   Wolff?  --I suppose
   Selig?  --obviously.
   Steve "no-way-in-Oakland" Shott--perhaps.
   The A's for not winning the World Series in    '06--hard to say
   A's fans? --no comment.  We could have sold out every game, and this still may have happened.
   Al Davis?--I'll leave that one up to anyone who actually cares.

    It was nice meeting some of you on here, but my days of baseball are over.  Thanks for some of your efforts upon deaf ears of people who felt that the Raiders coming back was more important than keeping the A's.  The limited amount of my A's merchandise/caps will be discarded, and my baseball cards will find a way to exit my possession.
I hope you all have a great life, even without the A's in Oakland.  Maybe I'll meet/see you around the city soon to have no MLB team.
-David

by wolffpackdavid on Nov 6, 2006 7:19 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Somebody check the Bay Bridge...
...someone is on suicide alert!
Lance Armstrong can make homophobic jokes on ESPN, yet Harold Reynolds pays the ultimate price? Explain that to me.

by gmoneymcg on Nov 8, 2006 5:26 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I'm
a little ambivalent about this. I had the chance to venture around the country a wee bit in 2006 and got to see some wonderful ballparks (Great American, US Cellular, Jacob's Field, PNC Park, and McAfee) and, unquestionably, the A's really needed a new park . . . like really. I'm just concerned about a possible name change. :/ Let's just hope it's decided to retain "Oakland" in the title. I'd hate to see that go.
"It's never 'just a game' if you're winning" - George Carlin

by bluelightrain84 on Nov 6, 2006 7:38 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Status Quo
What I think is interesting is how people are reacting as though the stadium is going up tomorrow.  Whether its the "Oakland-or-bust" folks complaining about the lack of public transit (which is a legitimate complaint), but when the stadium is finally complete we don't know what is (1) going to be in the planning stages or (2) going to be started being built.  But those who are jumping for joy also need to remember that not every great thing going for this deal like being closer to the ever-so-secure Silicon Valley businesses and the doing-well-for-now Pacific Commons is going to be a boon always.
All of that being said, I think the overall change is going to be for the better for the team.  When facing the possibility of leaving the area entirely, this has to be a better choice.  It may not have been the only choice but it was the only one truly presented.  I'd rather look at the positives of what I have than look wistfully and sadly at the maybes of pipe dreams that passed by.  I also would rather look positively at what I have than whine about how it's going to inconvinience me.  (Guess what, it's going to increase traffic around me...oh well, I'll get over it.  I still have my team.) And what I have is still my team within driving distance and getting a new stadium.  And those are good things.

by nateboegel on Nov 6, 2006 7:51 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Well
Only one two things matter to me

Its in the Bay area, they could float it out in the Bay for all I care.

For all its drawbacks the Oak Coliseum leads baseball in one pretty important stat, WINS

hopefully the A's do better in their new stadium than Stanford

new stadiums and 68 wins wont do it

by forester on Nov 6, 2006 8:31 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

can't believe it's really happening!
pictures of the drawings of the A's proposed ballpark back in august 2005 revisited:

by gotgreen on Nov 6, 2006 8:43 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Are these renderings still accurate?
This conceptualization was for a 35K park.  I believe the new announced version has a 40K capacity.  
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Nov 6, 2006 8:54 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Not that hard to get to 40K
To add 5,000 seats to the concept, all you need to do is add 7 rows of seats to the upper deck all the way around.

by vertig0 on Nov 6, 2006 9:08 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Wow, No kidding?
Cool.
"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Nov 6, 2006 9:30 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

What is that tower?
With a pool on top? It almost reminds me of Mt Davis. Why does it have to be so tall?

by streetfan on Nov 6, 2006 9:39 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Not accurate!
Chavvy will prolly have retired by the time the A's get the funding for this place. Can't even afford Zito, how are they gonna build a stadium? The whole thing is ridiculous. The A's lease at the Coliseum ends in 4 years. They will not have it built by then. San Jose A's of Fremont? This is baloney.
Let's GO OAKLAND!!!

by OaktownRajah on Nov 6, 2006 9:54 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Yep. Still ugly.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."

by Kyli on Nov 7, 2006 7:47 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

This is just terrible
would they have a world series parade down Mowry Ave. in Fremont?

25 miles from Oakland ...

I know mt. davis ruined it for most.

but that is still the same field that where 4 world championships were played.

it's gonna be major loss.

there are lots of A's fans north of Oakland, and its even worse a deal for them.

by GrewUpAtTheColiseum on Nov 6, 2006 9:12 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Oakland or Fremont - Go A's!
The idea of a baseball only stadium right next to the existing ballpark is laughable.  A parking lot setting - how romantic!  A brand new park surrounded on three sides by a high-crime ghetto and a waterway littered with shopping carts visible at low tide - so inviting!  Nothing makes you want to drive to an A's game like finding a puddle of broken glass where your car ought to be.  You have to love those high-rise billboards - Times Square on the Nimitz!  Sure, the commute to the new park will suck - be glad you're not on I-5 in Seattle!  The A's will be able to create an environment conducive to a festive baseball atmosphere by building bars and restaurants around the stadium.  Simply look north to Seattle, east to St. Louis or simply across the Bay to see what a revitalzed or tailor-made ballpark neighborhood can do.  It would have been nice to see the A's remain in Oakland - Fremont is better than Portland, Las Vegas or Tehran.

by DieEarthlingScum on Nov 6, 2006 9:31 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

all wrong
Geez what a big mistake-Wulff has it all wrong, the San Jose crowd doesnt care about baseball, especially As baseball. Unless Cisco is going to buy out all those luxury boxes its a big mistake.
The A's biggest fans have always been to the east like Sacramento, Modesto, Reno and the North Portland, Humboldt etc.

San Jose is full of people that dont really care about baseball-half of them want a professional World of Warcraft team and the other half want a Cricket Team.

Bad research of the market.
Wulff never had any intention of keeping the team in Oakland.

by apilgrim on Nov 6, 2006 9:32 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

Yeah, immigrants and computer nerds
hate baseball.
Stat Wonk Futurist

by salb918 on Nov 7, 2006 7:49 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

and freedom.
"Even if you know the deck is stacked in your favor, you still have to have the discipline to trust the math and the cojones to go to the ATM." BB

by green star oakland on Nov 7, 2006 4:32 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

oh yea?
Sounds like you have the upper hand on market research over Lew Wolff, a man in the real estate business for 40 some odd years!!  You're probably right, I bet he just blindfolded himself and threw a dart at a map of the bay area and it hit Fremont! Rediculous..

by wordfromthewise on Nov 7, 2006 4:06 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Geez, I go away for 1 day...
and not only have we lost an awesome 3rd base coach, we're moving!
I'm really sad I won't see Wash on that 3rd base corner anymore, waving his arms like a madman telling someone to keep running in from 2nd....

I feel slightly less sad about the move, only because it puts the team about an hour closer to me! I'm excited to see what happens.

by streetfan on Nov 6, 2006 9:37 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

I hate it....
As a sacramento resident it is hard enough finding the time to drive to Oakland. Freemont is not going to be a fun drive with kids. 3+ hours round trip added on to a 2+ hour game. Way to long of a day. Maybe by the time this place get's built Barry Bonds will have retired and I can go to Pacbell/whatever park instead. Screw moving!

by jjham15 on Nov 6, 2006 11:21 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

The A's should move to PacBell
i know that sounds crazy, but doesn't it make more sense?  the NFL's Giants and Jets share a stadium.  i'd rather bart into the city and go to pac bell than drive down 880.  the stadium is already there, and both the A's and Giants would profit from the arrangement.  would there be enough baseball fans to support baseball everyday for 162 games?  why not?

otherwise, build it in lake merritt.

by danh on Nov 6, 2006 11:25 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

floating park in lake merritt!
although wolff is probably looking at lake elizabeth, however, uhm, difficult, that may be.
"The hard... is what makes it great."

by Jjjsixsix on Nov 6, 2006 11:45 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I always thought
that the old quarry would've been a great site for a stadium. Just think: solid rock instead of a fence in center field, cheap land, easy access from 580....

It would've been perfect. Maybe.

When the lights...go down...in the city...

by senork on Nov 7, 2006 2:48 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

I'm just glad they're staying.....
 in the Bay area.  Jerry Brown obviously isn't a baseball fan, and he screwed up the team's chances of getting a nice stadium by Jack London Square.  Now at least they're closer to the south bay!  WOO HOO!  

So what's the new cheer?  Instead of Lets Go Oak-Land?  Is it: Lets Go Silicon Valles A's of Freemont?   :)

Tear down Mount Davis!

by polytician on Nov 7, 2006 6:00 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

This is fantastic news!
Fantastic! A home just for my beloved Oakland Athletics that they deserve. The Coliseum has been a shithole for years now, and robbed the A's of the ability to compete for the casual fan. For every fan saying this is a lousy move, I would opine that I've seen far too many Monday night crowds of 11,000 fans in early September with the A's leading the division. The ballpark experience just hasn't been there for years. A new stadium will be the reason to come to see a great baseball experience for decades to come. Good for Lew and the A's. Let's go A's!

by groversson on Nov 7, 2006 6:08 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

agreed
originally, i HATED the thought of the A's moving to fremont. i grew up in oakland and grew up watching the OAKLAND A's and for sentimental reasons, i'm going to miss the coliseum so much!

BUT ... it was heartbreaking to see those small crowds during weekday games and especially when the A's were in the heat of the pennant race. the A's deserve so much more support (even though those 11,000 are THE most diehard fans!) and they deserve to play in a beautiful ballpark of their own.

by gotgreen on Nov 7, 2006 10:18 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Goodbye, home.
I've never trusted Lew Wolff. I just can't trust a baseball owner after the Reign of Schott and Wolff's obvious lack of desire to stay in Oakland made it impossible for me. The Fremont move will cut my communte in half, and I'll likely end up being closer given a future move to San Jose, but I would gladly drive those extra miles any and every time in order to see the boys in Oakland.

I was born in the East Bay. I'm a third generation East Bay resident, and in that sense, I feel a hell of a lot more like a team in Oakland is 'my team' than a team in Fremont (the edge of the BART line, the edge of the world).

I'm not optimistic. I'm not optimistic that increased revenues will go to keeping our stars, I find it more likely that they'll go to the owners' pockets while they spend years saying that all the money they're ripping out of our pockets is going to pay off the new stadium. I'm not optimistic about the effect on the fans, other than the fact that for those who can afford to keep going to tons of games, they'll have some sort of pretty scenery to look at. Personally, the only pretty scenery I care about is the one on the field, the ones wearing the home whites. I want Lew Wolff to stand up and tell us flat out that he's making the existing A's fanbase a priority. He's here for money, and I don't blame him -- a move will increase the franchise's value a good amount. But I don't have to like a guy that doesn't care about me and what we represent, do I?

That's why I love the Coliseum, because I care about the team, and the Coliseum lets me go and see them. The Coliseum is home to me, it's the worn out sneakers that hold fuzzy memories despite falling apart. It's a place to see baseball, and as an A's fan, that's what I want to see -- not corporate jackasses on cell phones everywhere, not craptastic distractions and wine vendors, I want to see a goddamn game. Put the boys out in an open field, give 'em a bat and a ball, let's see baseball. I don't like all the frippery that a lot of the new parks have. Okay, places like SafeCo are damn sexy, but a lot try too hard to be overboard. Give me a GAME.

Guess I'd better load up on gear before they move, because there's no way in fuck I'll be able to buy something with 'Fremont' or 'Silicon Valley' on it without drinking a couple R&Cs first.

Actually, screw the name. Let's forget all regional affilations, let's go for the ultimate cool. 'The Athletics'. No place at all. Because if Lew wants to go where the money is an uproot a team that's already got a nomadic history, let's just own it.

I'll never give up my A's, or going to games, but this is gonna hurt. And I know people are rolling their eyes over my blind hatred of Wolff, but hell. We're all allowed to have our opinions, and mine's just an irrationally cynical one. Someone's gotta have Wolff-rage here, I don't see enough of it! :-D

"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."

by Kyli on Nov 7, 2006 8:02 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Ah, it's not that bad Kyli.
It's just change, which is inevibable.  At least this paticular change will give the A's an opportunity to reach new heights.  

I like the Coli too.  I really enjoyed the pricing structure as compared to other MLB venues.  But alas, all good thing must end.  And as fans we had it good for a very long time.  But parting is such sweet sorrow.  I understand the sentiment.  

The game will always be down there on the field.  Ignoring yuppies has become a life long trend for me, but they do have their good points.  Ignore them and focus on the field, you just might convert a few into hard core fans.  

Another positive note is that if or when you have kids, all their memories will be built in a park that will be around for a while.  The future of A's baseball in the bay will shine bright for years to come for them.  

I don't think the move to ATT has hurt the Giants payroll.  I would venture to say that they actually spend more on players than they ever did in the stick.  The have to in order to survive, even with the debt load.  Lew's finance plans don't seem to place such a burden on the A's, which is another positive.  We have a creative owner and a brilliant GM.  What's not to love after the sting of relocation subsides?

"You may glory in a team triumphant, but you fall in love with a team in defeat."--The Boys of Summer

by alox on Nov 7, 2006 12:31 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I couldn't agree more
I really agree with your post.

The A's will always be my team, always, but I am never going to buy any gear that says "San Jose" or whatever else on it......

As the time passes I am seeing a silver lining in that Fremont is a hell of a lot closer than (insert portland, Las Vegas, or another city here).

Rickey Henderson: 35, 24, hall of fame!

by Athletics fan and runner on Nov 7, 2006 1:05 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I love
When people criticize Lew for being greedy and selfish and then go on to say that they will stop rooting for their team because of a move from a stadium that had provided memories for THEMSELVES, that the commute is going to be soooo much worse for THEM, and that they will be leaving THEIR town.  

So who cares if he's being selfish?  At least his interests coincide with that of the welfare of the team over all.  All these other blowhards selfish interests, on the other hand, are contrary to overall success of the team.  Yea..lets stay in Oakland and draw 11,000 fans on Tuesday nights and lose all our good players year after year.  Start thinking of the team for once and not about how you're gonna get to the games now.  Real fans will find a way to go to games

by wordfromthewise on Nov 7, 2006 4:00 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

It's his right to be selfish.
I'm not saying he's not, I'm just saying that it's silly that people are getting pissed off that those who aren't happy, as if we should be grateful to him for moving the team. It's his team, he can do what he wants with it -- but I'm not going to weep with joy because he's making more money off of us.

The only thing the A's are opening up is the chance for more corporate money. The A's don't just draw from Oakland, they draw from the whole Bay Area. I'm not sure why Fremont is magically going to provide another 20,000 fans on Tuesday nights. They gain the South Bay and lose the North Bay. It's just a redistribution of the same problems in a shiny packaging that will prove to be a temporary panacea on a problem that involves a hell of a lot more than mere location, while creating new problems like public transit.

The question is really whether the new park will lead to better media deals -- that's going to be what's really helpful to the team.

The question is whether Fremont is somewhere that the A's expect to stay for 50+ years. Baseball is a game about stability in franchises -- if a team is going to be constantly moving, like the A's, that isn't helpful for building up the long-term, generational fanbase that teams on the East Coast benefit from. If Fremont is the final stop for the A's, that's a different story, but I honestly believe that two or three decades down the line, we're going to be asking the same damn question about sustainability in Fremont.

"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."

by Kyli on Nov 7, 2006 5:07 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

That's brilliantly expressed.
Brand identity is almost impossible to buy.
"Next thing you know, they'll have me taking an overdose of pills."--Milton Bradley

by jeepers on Nov 7, 2006 5:52 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I just really don't think
That Lew would jump into something like this without doing extensive studies on the maketablitly of a Fremont ballpark. He's a professional!  

by wordfromthewise on Nov 8, 2006 10:57 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

He's a professional, absolutely--
But I think it's reasonable to expect that he's got different priorities in terms of what scale of time he's looking at.

From a fan's perspective, the franchise as a whole and its long-term health is important. We've got a lifetime investment in the team.

Wolff's concern only has to extend to as long as he intends to be owner -- so what's good for the team during the timespan he intends to own the team doesn't mean that it's good for the A's as a whole, in the long-term sense.

Stadiums have a shelf life -- places like Tiger Stadium that last for decades upon decades seem to be the exception rather than the rule. It just seems like ballparks have begun to work in waves, other than McAfee and Shea and a couple others, all the parks of the 80s have been rebuilt in the past decade, lasting only 30-40 years. We don't know how long this park will last, but it's not unreasonable to expect that it'll have a shelf life and the A's will be once again faced with what to do about a new park. Making it so that the solution to building a park is just to move in order to facilitate ease in the process seems dangerous to the stability of establishing the franchise. Hell, I've run into plenty of people that still consider the A's the "upstarts new guys" in town compared the Giants, and they've been here 40 years.

I think Ray Ratto DID make a good point -- there may be more ideal locations, but Fremont has the power of being available NOW. As an owner, Wolff will make the best return off of his investment by going with a mediocre guarantee rather than hoping for an ideal future. But it means that he doesn't have to concern himself with the eventual fate of the franchise because this move will radically increase the value of the franchise for more than a decade once the new park is built.

He'll make money in a speedy and efficient manner. But that purpose isn't necessary good for stability for the A's.

"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."

by Kyli on Nov 9, 2006 6:52 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

No I don't buy it
Just wait around and see what comes up later?  Human population, business, life in general GROW, they don't shrink. No there will only be less and less room for a new park from here on out.  Gotta get it done as soon as possible..

by wordfromthewise on Nov 9, 2006 3:46 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

why are people so obsessed with ...
... overall attendance numbers? They're nearly meaningless.

Lew's interest in the team as an economic engine is predicated on:

  • Franchise appreciation
  • Franchise appreciation
  • Franchise appreciation
  • Sales and rents of housing units in the new complex
  • Rents from businesses in the new complex
  • Overall complex appreciation
  • Sales of increased capacity of luxury boxes in the new stadium to businesses and HNW individuals
Marginal increases in overall attendance rank somewhere below sales of oversize novelty foam fingers, churros, and licensing from the free-T-shirt-with-credit-card-application booths.

The simple novelty of a shiny new stadium -- combined with the "artifical" reduction in overall seating capacity (especially non-luxury-box seating capacity) and with the various bells and whistles of the whole "So KrAZeE You'll Forget You're at a Boring Ol' Ballgame!!!" klown karnival komplex -- will virtually guarantee consistent sellouts the first 2 years.

And after that, when the new-stadium-smell-Brasso has sublimated into a component part of the ever-more-LA-riffic Bay Smog, it still won't be worth the extra marketing expenditure to get those marginal 5K-10K fannies in the (not-so-cheap-anymore) seats.

Overall team attendance figures are the errors (in both senses of the word) of baseball business stats: irrelevant and misleading tallies with an overlay of mistaken moralism (Oakland/the East Bay doesn't "deserve" a team because of the "18K" nightly attendance; errors are an indicator of the defensive prowess of individual fielders).

God I miss old Van Halen, splits and leopard pants -- Blez @('.')@

by monkeyball on Nov 9, 2006 1:06 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

I am so sick of hearing all of the:
Goodbye A's, I hope you all have a good life, because I'm out <sob>. That's it, no more A's or baseball for me. I will become a Giants fan now. And so on so forth.

I don't want to sound rude - but my god. The A's aren't moving away - they are building a brand-spanking-new revenue generating stadium 20 miles south of there current location. This is good/great on many fronts - but most importantly will help keep the A's competitive in the current marketplace with a baseball stadium that will not have an outfield torn up and dead come September.

And for all of those whoe is me's out there - save that for the fans that had to watch the Browns leave overnight to Baltimore, who had to endure their franchise leave to Indy. I mean the Raiders packed up and left to LA - only to come back and ruin the Coliseum for the A's and baseball.

I just don't understand all the grief over something that should be getting cheered. This will keep the A's relevant for years to come - without any thoughts of truly relocating or being contracted - as this will keep the A's in the Bay Area for decades to come.

So I just want to let out one big Hoorah for the long overdue new stadium - and the decades of A's baseball to be experienced and enjoyed by all A's fans in the Bay Area - right where they should be!!!

by SD Erik on Nov 7, 2006 9:27 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Contraction is an empty threat.
Has been for awhile.
"This must be heaven," he says.
"No. It's Oakland."

by Kyli on Nov 7, 2006 10:48 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Amen Erik.
I'd even be willing to be rude about it.
The meaning of life is not so much 'found,' as it is 'made.' --Opus

by The Dogfather on Nov 7, 2006 10:56 AM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Moving...
...was a foregone conclusion when Wolff bought this team. The weather is better and the proximity to San Jose, while not real close, will be a huge draw. The team will draw from the Central Valley, too. The entire East Bay area from Richmond to San Leandro hasn't produced enough fans to warrant them staying. The Oakland/Alameda County politicos caved in to Al Davis, IMO, and basically chased the A's out of town. The current mayor, Jerry Brown - who California voters are likely to make Attorney General (the man simply can't stay out of the public trough) did -0- and Ron Dellums, the incoming mayor apparently cares nothing about the A's. Oakland doesn't deserve this team!!

by doubleplayer on Nov 7, 2006 9:40 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

i hate that the A's are moving out of oakland
but if this means that the A's will start generating more revenue and they'll be able to start keeping their players, then i'm all for it!!

by gotgreen on Nov 7, 2006 9:42 AM PST reply actions   0 recs

Drama Queens
Dear Drama Queens:

Please turn in your A's gear at the door.  And good riddance.  Your loyalty is clearly stronger to your beloved city than it is to the Athletics.  Your incessant whining wont be missed.

The rest of us true A's fans will continue to root for them 20 miles down the road.    

BTW, Oakland peering down its nose at Fremont, are you kidding?  That's rich . . . .

You had your chance.  Turn your ire to your elected leaders.  

Go A's

by Surfin in Santa Cruz on Nov 7, 2006 4:00 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

No elegant way of saying it......
the new "hometown" will be an awkward name for this franchise.  This is not an insignificant problem.  Because of the all things to all people hometwon name, the Angels have been the laughingstock of all sports.  And while they rarley admit it, Halo fans have no credible arguments to defend against the abuse.  Lew and John need to learn from Arte.  Make sure this franchise has a real indentity with the hometown name.

But the A's are stuck - it simply cannot be Fremont and OAK doesn't work anymore.  For mostly intangible reasons, 'Bay Area' is just too weak sounding.  South Bay is weak too.  

I see only two choices, both of which are less than satisfactory:  San Jose and Silicon Valley.   Nevermind the inconvenient argument that to many, Fremont is not even in the Silicon Valley.  But realistically it is the only thing that works for this franchise in this location.  Take cue from the Newark 'W' Hotel - the Silicon Valley A's it must be.

"We owe it all to one man. And we are all extraneous. 'Billy' has denuded us of ego". Liar's Poker

by Sashulia on Nov 7, 2006 4:10 PM PST reply actions   0 recs

It's worse for us.
Angel fans can at least hide behind that weak "we were the Los Angeles Angels forty years ago" argument.
"Next thing you know, they'll have me taking an overdose of pills."--Milton Bradley

by jeepers on Nov 7, 2006 4:18 PM PST up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Oakland Athletics.

Community Guidelines ANcillary Terms
Start posting about the Athletics »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Imgp0089_editedagasin_small
DLD 11/24/09 - Fine, I'll make another video game dump
Me_at_att_park_small
Greener Grass, Episode 7: Transportation Proclamation
Me_at_att_park_small
Old McPherson is an A, e yi e yi yoooooooo
Depaulbluedemons_small
Community Prospect List #18
413niegoftl__sl500_aa280__small
A's Protect Carter, FDLS, Figueroa and Souza from Rule V

Recent FanPosts

Small
The A's Move to Oakland in 1968
Funny-pictures12_small
If Jack Cust Traded, Then To Whom And For What?
Small
Jack Cust Drawing Trade Interest?
Countdown_small
Some things I am "coming around" on...
Bill_king_small
On Trading Catchers....

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

SPONSORS


Managers

Tyler_at_maya_school_small Tyler Bleszinski

08-_the_author_small 67MARQUEZ

Baseball_small baseballgirl

Poochini-butt_in_box_2_small Nico

As_kings_cal_small louismg

Editors

Countdown_small Taj Adib

Ziegler160px_small Flashfire

527918550406_0_bg_small notsellingjeans