Athletics Nation: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: Race to the BCS: rankings, in-game scores & blogs Bar-right-arrows

I Am A(n) __________ A’s Fan

Baseball_tiny by baseballgirl on in News

I’d like to pull out another paragraph from Throwing Away ’08?, and although it was discussed briefly in this diary, I thought it warranted another look.

Wolff reiterated that he wouldn't keep the A's in Oakland if the Fremont plan collapses. Asked if that means the team would leave the Bay Area, he said, "I think we would have to leave the Bay Area, but I want to make sure you know I have not spent any time threatening that. I hate that. It's not the way we operate. The Fisher family (the majority owner) and myself, we want to stay here."

Wolff was reminded that Major League Baseball and its 30 clubs are earning record profits and that Commissioner Bud Selig long ago stopped threatening to fold teams, and by playing at the Coliseum, the A's are assured of generous revenue-sharing checks every year.

"The league wants to have baseball-specific venues," said Wolff, no fan of co-existing with the Raiders. "I don't know how we can get to where we want to be when, for example, they drag the stands onto the field in August, when we're trying to make a push for the playoffs."

This is not, in itself, cause for any alarm. Although we’d certainly expect to hear more about the Freemont plan if everything was merrily clicking away, the team is still in Oakland until they aren’t. And that’s the reality we have to deal with; we have the Oakland A’s of ’08 to cheer for, and relying too much on the ‘what ifs’ of the future will take some luster off the present.

But it’s my deepest fear--deeper than the Giants winning it all, or the A’s moving to a small stadium in Freemont, or the A’s rebuilding for a couple of years, or my favorite players leaving the team--the fear that the A’s just wouldn’t be the A’s if they moved out of the area. It may not be professional or politically correct, but there it is: I love things the way they are--decrepit stadium, cheap tickets, good seats, small-market team and all.

Not that I wouldn’t welcome more money to sign more talent, or a fancy new place to showcase them, but not at the expense of actually losing the A’s. I want it both ways; yet know this isn’t possible.

I think of A’s fans from different generations and locations--A’s fans from Philadelphia or Kansas City--and how they must have felt at the news of the impending moves. In an era where it was local coverage or nothing, could you effectively follow a sports franchise across the country? Would you simply mourn the loss and choose a local team to root for; one that you would have a chance to see in person and follow with radio/TV?

And in today’s age, should things be different? With the invention of lifesavers like XM radio, MLB.TV, Extra Innings packages, and the internet, it is possible to follow a team of your choosing from almost any geographical region. The quality sacrificed by a team’s move will directly correspond to how many games you attend in person. And for a non-resident A’s fan like myself, I think I’d be thrilled if the A’s came closer to me. Boot the Angels up to Portland and move the A’s to Los Angeles? Done and done.

But what if the move takes the team to another state; or worse; cross-country? Are we locked into the Bay Area or even California as the only locations for the A’s, or might we welcome a move? How much would you trade for a new stadium? A higher payroll to work with? What is your deepest fear in regards to the A’s moving?

Am I the only one who stays awake at night pondering all this?

Poll
Hypothetically, if the A's moved, I would root for:
The Oakland Athletics only; no baseball for me otherwise
96 votes
The Athletics, in any Bay Area city
440 votes
The Athletics, in any West Coast city
100 votes
The Athletics, no matter where they are located
457 votes
The Athletics in another state, but also pick up a local (to me) team
66 votes
A local (to me) team, and not the Athletics
25 votes
Another team entirely (list below)
44 votes
It all depends on how the move is handled
104 votes

1332 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 133 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

In my case,
the fact that I happen to be somewhat close to the A's is more or less a coincidence in terms of me liking them. My true "local team" is the Giants.

So I think I'd still follow the team if they moved out of the area.

cardinalprecepts.blogspot.com

by PaulThomas on Jan 16, 2008 9:26 AM PST   0 recs

I moved to Seattle a long time ago...

But my A's fandom has never been higher.  However, that being said Oakland is a huge part of the Oakland identity since being in Oakland has affected virtually everything we know and love about the organization.  I too, would be pissed off if they moved out of the area, because it then becomes a question of what identity is left to root for?

In my mind, I'd basically be rooting for Beane at that point, which is fine, but I don't think I could be quite as passionate, who knows.

by SwisherSweet on Jan 16, 2008 9:37 AM PST   0 recs

Old people in Kansas City and Philly

...have no idea what you're talking about.

We should play Jack Cust at shortstop for a week, just so we can feel good about Crosby again.

by Ozzz on Jan 16, 2008 10:41 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

That matches pretty closely with how I feel

I'm also in Seattle, so as a practical matter I could root for the A's wherever they go, but it would bug me if they left the East Bay.  My sentimental attachment to the A's is strongly linked to my sentimental attachment to Oakland.

But although a move would bug me, it wouldn't stop me from rooting for the A's so long as they kept the same "personality". That personality has a lot to do with Beane.  If Beane were to leave, it would make a very big difference to me who replaced him.  If Forst takes his place and things proceed as normal (I'm convinced Forst is doing half the GM'ing job already anyway...) then no big deal.  But if they change gears and go to a Stoneman style team, then that wouldn't feel like the A's to me anymore.

"Ten times thy self were better than ten Hattebergs" -- Monkeyball, channeling Shakespeare

by iglew on Jan 16, 2008 6:05 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

I would still follow the team

but as far as fears go I fear...

  1. A change of name to "Silicone Valley A's of Fremont" or anything of that nature. Last thing I want to do is have my team follow the Angels in their lame steps.
  1. Change of colors. I like that we're original.
  1. Team leaving the state, although Vegas would be nice, cause then they'd be closer and I could stay at really nice hotels when I go and see a game.

by Amnesiac on Jan 16, 2008 9:38 AM PST   0 recs

HA! I like the Vegas idea too ;-)

But yes...the name and the colors are important to me, as well.

I like the green and gold.

So, bring on Bonds! Or, not... then, bring back Langerhans!! -One won lost one

by baseballgirl on Jan 16, 2008 9:43 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Vegas resident here

and lifelong A's fan. I grew up in Calaveras County, and my parents took me to A's games in the 70's and 80's because they hated crossing the bridge for anything besides Tadich Grill and the occasional Lamplighters production. (I still fly in for those too, if the A's are home that weekend.)

I think a move to Las Vegas for any MLB team would be impossible. (Someday I'll do a diary of the reasons why, although I'm sure it's been discussed here at length.)

Nonetheless, if they did move here to the City That Never Sweeps (there's dust all over everything!), I'd be overjoyed  - - and hate myself for it. At the risk of kissing up, I'd feel awful about benefitting from the loss of all you dedicated locals. A friend of mine was a Colts fan; he still suffers, even though  the Ravens won a Super Bowl, for God's sake. I probably wouldn't be able to stay away from the park, though.

I'm fully accepting of the proposed move to Fremont, since I have to fly in and BART for the games anyway, and anything that helps us sign Daric or TBuck to a long-term deal, I'm in favor of.

But if they took option C: out of the Bay Area and into some non-Vegas metropolis, I expect it would be easy for me to drop the A's and become just a more casual observer of baseball than the A's-centric obsessive I am now.

I'd prefer the A's find some solution in Oakland, or wait on the Raiders to flee (you know they will) and re-fit the Coliseum to the A's needs. I realize that's pretty much a fantasy, though.

by EddieVegas_NRAF on Jan 16, 2008 12:59 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Were the colors always that way?

Tough to tell in old photos, but they don't appear to be original in an original sense.

We should play Jack Cust at shortstop for a week, just so we can feel good about Crosby again.

by Ozzz on Jan 16, 2008 10:42 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Colors

The Philadelphia Athletics wore blue and white or black and gray outfits through most of their history; in the last years in Philadelphia and the first in Kansas City, the team used a red, white and navy blue scheme. In 1963, Finley changed the team’s colors to Kelly Green, Fort Knox Gold and Wedding Gown White which, although the kelly green was replaced by a darker, forest green shade in 1981, essentially remain the team colors today.

Birds of a feather flock together....and crap on your car!

by RJ2549 on Jan 16, 2008 12:01 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

and lest you forget the fourth color

Vida Blue

"Baseball- like movies, newspapers, and magazines- has fallen into the hands of rich, vulgar people who neither love or understand it." - Hal Crowther

by 67MARQUEZ on Jan 16, 2008 12:54 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Andrew, Emil, Jeremy and Dee say hi
"Ten times thy self were better than ten Hattebergs" -- Monkeyball, channeling Shakespeare

by iglew on Jan 16, 2008 6:07 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

At that point

Aren't they the Silicone Mountain Double-D's of LA?

And if the team moves to Fremont, why can't they just change the name to the F'n A's?

by ozzman99 on Jan 16, 2008 2:06 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Because Fremont isn't Free

Unlike an outfield with Jack Cust, you've added an extra E to the erstwhile new home of the A's.

I dunno about lying awake at night, but I definitely fret about all the ballgames I won't be able to attend.  I'm figuring from 30/year down to +/- 7 or so with a Fremont move, mostly from expense, somewhat from proximity.  However, if they built a new park in Oakland that number would still drop, down to perhaps +/- 12, because of cost.

If they moved to Vegas or San Antonio, it drops to zero, which is the point where I (probably) start hunting for a new fave team.   Not because it's all about attendance, but because they will have jilted me past the point of forgiveness.

All that said:  I think relocation is very unlikely even if Fremont tanks, simply because all other markets are smaller and/or have bigger obstacles.  To owners, these other cities have far more value as a threat for leverage than they do as a possible actual new home.  Just ask the Marlins.

They hung a sign up in our town: "If you live it up, you won't live it down."

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jan 16, 2008 9:39 AM PST   0 recs

But can they stay in Oakland?
So, bring on Bonds! Or, not... then, bring back Langerhans!! -One won lost one

by baseballgirl on Jan 16, 2008 9:44 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Can they? Sure. Will they?

Not likely.  Though the Oakland Army Base and my fave site Broadway Auto Row are still wide open.  But it would take ownership willing to work harder and profit less (though still handsomely), and a City/County willing to work hard and cut a deal.  I don't really see either of those happening.

I mention Oakland here just for contrast, to keep myself honest:  it's not a local move that would cut my attendance so much as the loss of affordability.

They hung a sign up in our town: "If you live it up, you won't live it down."

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jan 16, 2008 9:55 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

I too like the Oakland West BART

location for a stadium.  Why not a stadium that spans over the 880 freeway, near that Post Office facility?

I haven't checked how close "Broadway Auto Row" is to BART (MacArthur Station) but I think Oakland West has it beat, especially considering the number of freeways that meet near there, and all the BART trains that go through Oakland West BART.  And Amtrak nearby.

There is 100% no discussion about the decrepit Army buildings and rehabbing that site.  Are Superfund remediation funds available?  Curiously, the city of Irwindale tried to get the Raider because building a stadium would have cost them zero dollars: the State of California would have paid for, basically, the remediation of an eyesore (a gravel pit).  Irwindale dipped into state coffers twice, including luring a brewery with a "no cost to you" physical plant, funded by California taxpayers.

"I never predict anything, and I never will." Paul Gascoigne, English footballer

by One won lost won on Jan 16, 2008 10:09 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

You know...

...in Vancouver, the local USL soccer team (soon to be MLS if rumor is to be believed) is building a 15k stadium smack dab in the middle of downtown.

How can they do that, if downtown real estate is ridiculously expensive?

Simple. They're building it over the water, and part of a freight train yard.

Water rights cost far less than real estate. Food for thought?

We should play Jack Cust at shortstop for a week, just so we can feel good about Crosby again.

by Ozzz on Jan 16, 2008 10:44 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

This stuff's made in Mexico City!?

That's where I would move the Athletics...  There are a shitload of people there, and at least 3-5 million of them with enough leisure money to buy season tickets...  The city already supports 2 AAA teams.  

Plus, "Atleticos" has a nice ring to it.

"The more self-centered and egotistical a guy is, the better ballplayer he's going to be."- Bill "The Spaceman" Lee

by The Pilots Dared Me To Die on Jan 16, 2008 12:25 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Atleticos

I have thought for years that the A's ought to do a special promotion for Mexican Independence Day (September 4th?? or thereabouts).

You keep the "green" in the cap, but then add the orange-red and the white (colors on the Mexican Flag) and the A's players wear jerseys with the green red and white, with "Atleticos" across the front.

Talkaboutashitloadofsalesofmerchandise!!!

"I never predict anything, and I never will." Paul Gascoigne, English footballer

by One won lost won on Jan 16, 2008 8:12 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Not in California

Laws here known as the Tidelands Trust prevent anyone from building on or even modifying any publicly-owned piece of shoreline. Doing so would require a combination of state legislation and massive land exchanges to make up for the loss of tidelands (shoreline and submerged land).

by vertig0 on Jan 16, 2008 1:12 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

which is why my floating stadium makes sense
Believe it or not, it felt wonderful when blood spurted out. @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jan 16, 2008 1:21 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

I will humor you on this

A floating stadium would be a nice idea as long as the infrastructure were ready to service it. You'd think a floating stadium would fit into some legal grey area since it's not anchored to anything and has no official home, but it doesn't.

The precedents that exist are the floating homes in Alameda, Redwood City, and near Sausalito. All of the homes have individual berths and depending on tides, may be floating or in mud. Since the floating homes don't have any kind of self-propulsion, they aren't classified as boats. They have rules and regulations more akin to housing. A stadium would have similar regs.

Another thing to consider is this: what makes a large monolithic structure float? Answer: it displaces water. There would be some question about how displacement much a multi-million ton barge/stadium structure would create.

by vertig0 on Jan 16, 2008 2:09 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Get some folks from Dubai to finance it.
They don't seem to have any trouble building gigantic things that defy the laws of sensibility.
We should play Jack Cust at shortstop for a week, just so we can feel good about Crosby again.

by Ozzz on Jan 16, 2008 2:43 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Look, ships are being scrapped at present

for next to nothing, because all tankers, and yes, supertankers, have to be double-hulled by some approaching date.

Really, you could probably get two VLCCs (very large crude carriers) stripped of the mechanicals, two, for about 30 million.  Plenty of room for a ballfield and grandstands.  Maybe "subfield parking" for VIPs.

Upper decks can be lighter, because they down have to withstand huge load forces in the event of an earthquake in a stadium filled with people.  The stadium would not be moving with the ground movement, and would be much more safe than anything on the tidelands of Fremont in the event of an earthquake.

Would the state of Calif chip in for a "command center" that the stadium would become if/when the Hayward Fault rips us a new one???!

"I never predict anything, and I never will." Paul Gascoigne, English footballer

by One won lost won on Jan 16, 2008 8:19 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Even better

A floating stadium that can be taken out into international waters.  Build a casino in right field and watch the cash flow!  Heck, free tickets and free booze.

by ozzman99 on Jan 16, 2008 2:12 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

already part of my plan, ozzman

http://www.athleticsnation.com/story...

Believe it or not, it felt wonderful when blood spurted out. @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jan 16, 2008 2:38 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Always one step ahead

What the hell are these opposable thumbs doing for me, anyway?

by ozzman99 on Jan 16, 2008 3:14 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

helping you craft siglines, anyway
What the hell are these opposable thumbs doing for me, anyway? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jan 16, 2008 3:24 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Good point

Without thumbs, I'd need a frog-like tongue to tap the space bar.

by ozzman99 on Jan 17, 2008 5:08 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Oakland

can be ours again IF Al Davis moves the Raiders back to Los Angeles. This would pave the way for the A's to build a baseball only stadium at the current location.  

by sf drift king on Jan 16, 2008 12:32 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Did I hear a rumor

that the Raiders are thinking about a new stadium?

"We've certainly improved the probability of improving the team."-Lew Wolff

by kkdaz on Jan 16, 2008 1:01 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

and if ...

... Gavin succeeds in luring the Warriors to a new downtown SF facility when their lease runs out.

Believe it or not, it felt wonderful when blood spurted out. @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jan 16, 2008 1:08 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Fremont costs a Buck '05?
Believe it or not, it felt wonderful when blood spurted out. @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jan 16, 2008 10:31 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

A move will not change my fanhood

As long as I'm a baseball fan I will remain an A's fan, and I will always follow them in whatever capacity is available.  However, if the A's moved out of state I would likely not be going to any games, and would lose access to them on TV that I currently have on Fox Sports Bay Area.  I live in Fresno now, so my ability to attend A's games is already limited by the fact that it takes an entire day to watch a game in Oakland.  

I'd like to eat my lunch, but Billy just kicked me out of my office.

by BlameChannel53 on Jan 16, 2008 9:45 AM PST   0 recs

Another Fresno resident?

I think I understand the sig now.

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

by alox on Jan 17, 2008 8:02 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

I'd probably follow the team

As long as Beane is GM

Let's have our Piazza and eat the Cust too - SPWC

by closetasfan on Jan 16, 2008 9:56 AM PST   0 recs

Ditto.

The fact that my local minor league team is A's affiliated got me here, but his leadership is something I like a lot, and that kept me interested at a much deeper level than any previous teams I have (or tried to) liked.

He runs this team like I run teams in baseball computer games. Respect.

We should play Jack Cust at shortstop for a week, just so we can feel good about Crosby again.

by Ozzz on Jan 16, 2008 10:46 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Yeah...

I'm pretty much a Billy Beane fan.  

But I pretty much shot my load in the 1999-2004 era.  After Hudson was traded away, a lot of my enthusiasm died.  I really wanted Chavez traded away and Hudson signed long term, instead...

Plus, Billy's not a genius among idiots anymore.  There are a lot of good, smart GMs in the game now.  It's the difference between Doyle Brunson at your home game and Doyle Brunson at the final table at the WSOP... Same great player... better competition...

Then again, I don't bleed green & gold, either...  This year, I'll also be following the Royals and Devil Rays, because I really like what they're doing with their organizations, and it will be fun watching the quest for .500 along with the A's quest for .500.

"The more self-centered and egotistical a guy is, the better ballplayer he's going to be."- Bill "The Spaceman" Lee

by The Pilots Dared Me To Die on Jan 16, 2008 12:30 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

You're a fan of teams

that deliberately put out awful rosters to get artificially high draft picks?

Are you also a Boston Celtics fan?

cardinalprecepts.blogspot.com

by PaulThomas on Jan 16, 2008 1:39 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

That's a harsh assessment.
The Rays are hamstrung by the fact that they play almost all their games against teams with no limit on payroll. They're doing the best they can against some pretty harsh odds.

The Royals are a joke, but at least management is making some moves to get past the concrete block that has long been tied around the team by ownership.

If you're a fan of the management end of town, both teams present some unusual challenges, and they're fighting the tide to get back to respectability the right way.

We should play Jack Cust at shortstop for a week, just so we can feel good about Crosby again.

by Ozzz on Jan 16, 2008 2:47 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

DRays payroll since 2000

From COTS:

  1. $24,123,500
  1. $35,417,967
  1. $29,679,067
  1. $29,556,667
  1. $19,630,000
  1. $34,380,000
  1. $56,980,000
  1. $64,400,000

Yup, some really harsh, SELF-IMPOSED odds.

Yeah, collecting revenue sharing checks, finishing last every year and collecting high draft picks sure is the "right" way to respectability.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Jan 17, 2008 7:16 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

To be fair

They did place 27th out of 30 teams in baseball last year in operating revenue, per Forbes.  They were also 11th in operating income, though.

They can certainly spend more than they do, but one has to wonder if they'd get a better return on their investment than they're going to get in the near future on those draft picks.

For the record, the A's finished 23rd in revenues, and 20th in operating income.

The clear winner of the miser sweepstakes are the Florida Marlins, though.  They pocketed $43.5M last year.  Think they could have paid Miguel Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis?

So it goes.

by jeepers on Jan 17, 2008 9:57 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

The fact that it is, in some sense, strategically

correct to tank games, skimp on payroll and play for draft picks is not relevant to the issue. All that demonstrates is that there are perverse incentives toward losing for teams at the bottom of the MLB revenue totem pole. Which is true... but doesn't make heeding those incentives "playing the game the right way."

cardinalprecepts.blogspot.com

by PaulThomas on Jan 17, 2008 10:16 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Depends on what they do going forward.

They're exploiting the rules as they're written--and playing by them.  Playing by the rules is, by definition, "playing the game the right way."  It certainly does highlight the fact that the rules should be changed, via a salary floor or some other such adjustment.

If they raise the payroll to accomodate keeping all of the young talent they've developed when the time comes, I certainly wouldn't complain about the strategy if I'm a Devil Rays fan--just as I'm not complaining about the high draft picks the A's are going to get from sucking in 2008.

So it goes.

by jeepers on Jan 17, 2008 10:19 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

The Marlins are exploiting the rules as written

as well.

Any definition of "playing the game the right way" that encompasses the Marlins is obviously not correctly constructed.

cardinalprecepts.blogspot.com

by PaulThomas on Jan 17, 2008 11:02 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

And per Forbes

they had $134M in revenues. They spent $24M in MLB salaries, 17.9%

Yanks, $302M in revenues. $190M in MLB salaries, 62.9%

RS, $234M in revenues. $143M in MLB salaries, 61.1%.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Jan 17, 2008 10:35 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Well, that comparison is a bad one

because it doesn't evaluate fixed costs. The Sox and Rays spent similar amounts on non-payroll matters (like stadium upkeep), while the Yankees spent quite a bit more, perhaps on building their own new stadium.

Subtract those numbers and you get:

Yankees: $165M in available moneys, $190M in MLB salaries (115%)
RS: $163M in available moneys, $143M in salaries (88%)
DRays: $44M in available moneys, $24M in salaries (55%)

Still makes the point, but it's a lot less ridiculous-looking.

cardinalprecepts.blogspot.com

by PaulThomas on Jan 17, 2008 11:10 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

And every team has to add various costs

for various factors, all accounted for in different ways, etc, all used to justify their current payrolls and why they can't raise them further.

As a percentage of revenues, MLB player salaries in 2007 were about 41-42%.

DRays, 17.9%.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Jan 17, 2008 12:00 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Let it not be lost in the fiscal milieu

That the A's come in at a robust #5 in franchise value appreciation rate, with an estimated 24%--$58 million--one-year rise in value.  That made it a $112 million increase in the three years of Wolffish ownership, a pretty spectacular ROI, all of which assumes the old ballpark.  A new park will likely send that value upwards at an even faster rate (all per Forbes estimates with assorted caveats stipulated).

Pimpin' my old Forbes diary.

They hung a sign up in our town: "If you live it up, you won't live it down."

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jan 17, 2008 11:54 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Maybe you wanna contrast those payroll figures...
...with the Red Sox, Yankees, Blue Jays and Orioles, who the Rays would have to beat to get to a playoff.

They could double payroll tomorrow, and they'd still be the smallest payroll in the division by a long way, and would still struggle to break .500 against that kind of opposition.

We should play Jack Cust at shortstop for a week, just so we can feel good about Crosby again.

by Ozzz on Jan 17, 2008 10:08 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

How about beating some other WC team?

"They could double payroll tomorrow, and they'd still be the smallest payroll in the division by a long way, and would still struggle to break .500 against that kind of opposition."

And this is something to be proud of? That their payroll is so tiny that doubling it would still result in a small payroll is an item of pride?

But, they're "efficient". Or something.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Jan 17, 2008 10:28 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

hunh?

If they finish behind the Yankees, Red Sox, Blue Jays, and Orioles ... then by definition they would finish behind whomever is the WC team. How, exactly, are you imagining they could beat some other team to the WC if they finish fifth in their division?

The best that can be said about this is that it's imaginative. @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jan 17, 2008 10:53 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

I'm saying that they don't need to win the AL

East.

ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524

by rfloh on Jan 17, 2008 11:02 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

We'll see what they do in the next few years

It's hard to blame them for skimping on payroll when they're going to lose anyway and getting a FA or two wouldn't make much difference. With the talent they have now, though, they really need to spend some money next offseason/not trade Kazmir, and they'll have a chance. Having flexibility should help if they want to do that.

It starts with rule No. 1 from coach Don Nelson: Shoot the ball.

by mikeA on Jan 17, 2008 11:06 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

That's how I became an A's fan

Grew up at the A's Double-A affiliate.  In fact -- and this probably sounds weird -- I might have fewer emotions about the A's moving than when the Huntsville Stars switched affiliations from the A's to the Brewers.

"[Moneyball] is huge [in Japan], I guess, so I'm like a David Hasselhoff type or something..." -- Billy Beane

by FormerHuntsvilleStar on Jan 16, 2008 7:42 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Yeah -- my ardor heated substantially after I ...

... read the Gospel.  I am a big fan of those who can look at the same thing people have been viewing for a hundred years, and see it differently.  Plus, Billy's system is a process, and it's fun to try to keep up with the current applications.  

Growing up near Philly I was a local partisan, just because that's who was constantly in front of me.  

If the A's left and the Giaunts hired Billy, I'd ... gulp ... likely pick up the scattered pieces of my cranium and go root for those locals, too.    

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

by The Dogfather on Jan 16, 2008 4:59 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

It surprises me

that so many people would follow the team "no matter where."

Although I suppose my own emotions on the matter probably make less sense than the "anywhere" crowd. For me, the A's are my hometown team. If they leave the Bay Area, they wouldn't be my team anymore--even though I haven't lived in the Bay Area for over 20 years, and even though I can now watch their games no matter where they are.

If they leave, I'm almost certain I'd drop the A's--and I'd probably drop baseball as well. It would leave a big hole in my life, but my affections are not easily transferable.

I've hated the Raiders since the day they left (and they screwed Oakland--and the A's--even worse by returning than they did by leaving). I do enjoy seeing Old Fart Davis squirming in the owner's box during one of the teams usual putrid performances.

by Faust on Jan 16, 2008 10:01 AM PST   0 recs

See...I moved before the A's did.

The A's were kind of my 'hometown' team. I grew up in the Bay Area market (still 2 hour drive each way), but I did have radio/TV, which was key.

I was the one that moved out of the area and had to decide to follow them instead of picking up the Dodgers or Angels. For social activities, I still go to games down here, but they mean nothing to me unless the A's are playing.

I just can't get excited for a team--any team--like the A's...and as long as they're still the A's, it doesn't matter to me where they are actually located; I'm not local as it is.

Can't explain why I wouldn't be as passionate about baseball without them, but there it is...

So, bring on Bonds! Or, not... then, bring back Langerhans!! -One won lost one

by baseballgirl on Jan 16, 2008 10:07 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

Well, I left, too

I grew up in Oakland, and who knows I may yet live in the Bay Area again some day. But I've been in Baltimore for over 20 years now.

But when I moved, I never had to "choose" whether to follow the A's or switch to the Orioles or whatever. I was an Oakland A's fan; I couldn't help it and there wasn't any choice involved. In fact it was pretty damned inconvenient, especially way back then, when not only wasn't there any internet access or Extra Innings or MLB.com, but you often couldn't even find the box scores for West Coast games in the morning newspaper.

I agree about passion for the sport being connected with passion for a team. Without a fierce, personal rooting interest in a team, I would not care about the sport nearly so much.

by Faust on Jan 16, 2008 10:24 AM PST to parent up   0 recs

When I moved to Seattle

I genuinely expected that my loyalties would gradually shift to the Mariners (who were already my second favorite anyway).

It didn't happen.  It wasn't a conscious choice, I just found that I was still an A's fan first.

"Ten times thy self were better than ten Hattebergs" -- Monkeyball, channeling Shakespeare

by iglew on Jan 16, 2008 6:14 PM PST to parent up   0 recs

Hrmm

I've been an avid A's fan since as long as I can remember (Mom tells me since I was four ... over twenty years ago). People around here (in southern West Virginia) look at me like I'm crazy for not supporting the Reds, but proximity was never important to me. The A's have been a huge part of my life since I was a kid and will remain ingrained in me until I croak; their locale is secondary to me. On the contrary, however, I understand one's devotion to a local team: my brother is a Reds nut.

"It's never 'just a game' if you're winning" - George Carlin

by bluelightrain84 on Jan 16, 2008 5:30 PM PST to parent up   0 recs