San Jose A's (again)

by bjk15 on Jan 20, 2008 10:19 AM PST

I should say that I am not from the bay area, but at the very least I do find this Ratto article to be interesting if not hopeful for the A's should they not be able to work out a deal with Fremont.

Thus, Selig is now in a position to:

-- Punish the Giants for their role in the Anderson/Barry Bonds mess.

-- Keep Congress off his back.

-- Do his good pal Lew Wolff, the A's owner who just jump-started Selig's latest contract extension and raise, a badly needed solid by pushing a finger into the eye of Magowan, who is not all that beloved in BudWorld these days.

Whether this is true or not, it is interesting.

Is baseball considering such a notion? Not that anyone can tell. But it is a solution that has several benefits to it, not the least of which is hitting the Giants where Magowan thinks they live. San Francisco's strategy for long-term health has been to drive the A's into the sea, and it galls the Giants that their annual contributions to the revenue sharing plan almost exactly match Oakland's take-home check.

That is frustrating.

But we digress. The issue here is Santa Clara County, which is still trying to figure out if it has the money and political will to build the 49ers a $900 million stadium (up from the original $600-odd million). If the football plan collapses, a ballpark is cheaper, gets the county a baseball team and alleviates its loss of civic self-esteem.

So, let me get this straight: the obstacles that have to be overcome are 1) Bud hating on the Giants and Magowan and 2) not just hating on them, but punishing them for the hate by equalizing the bay area and finally 3) the A's have to hope that the 49ers stadium deal fails...

With that being said, what has to be done to take out the 49ers deal?

Anyway, being that I have never liked the Giants or 49ers this pipe dream would make me very happy... and I just wish there was something that I could do to make it happen...

0 recs | Comment 29 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

It won't happen

its just more pure speculation.

The A's are already commited to Fremont. They've invested quite a bit of money into the project thus far, a project that will fail if there is no stadium, as the Fremont City Council will not approve it with out the stadium.

In order to move to San Jose, the A's would have to completly abandon all of their current plans in Fremont, including the housing and retail project, burn their bridges and alienate the city of Fremont as well as Cisco, somehow get the Giants to give BACK the territorial rights to San Jose, for the 49'ers stadium plan to fizzle and to find the Land AND Money to build the stadium in San Jose.

Or they can go with their current plan and just call the team the San Jose Athletics, playing at Cisco Field at Fremont.

by Zonis on Jan 20, 2008 10:23 AM PST 0 recs

Totally speculation

And Ratto's been beating the "wouldn't San Jose be much better" drum ever since the name Fremont entered the discussion. To suggest that MLB would go back on everything they've ever said about SJ and territorial rights, to favor the team they've historically liked least in the Bay Area, in order to mete out disproportionate punishment on a wholly unrelated subject, is, to say the least wishful thinking, and to say the most lunacy.

But, if Fremont fell through of its own accord, I am certain Lew would at least inquire, again, into the San Jose subject, because he'd have nothing to lose, especially since he's painted himself into a rhetorical "never go back to Oakland" corner.

There is an A in Whimsy.

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Jan 20, 2008 11:50 AM PST up 0 recs

Mr. Ratto does like to disturb the peace

doesn't he? I've never quite understood Lew's adamant rejection of Oakland after his psuedo courtship of the city. I suppose his inability to find a "suitable" location is the justification for his outright rejection at this point in the process...buy why burn bridges if it's not necessary?

"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 20, 2008 12:10 PM PST up 0 recs

Never Say Never

The Fremont plan is not a done deal, and if it goes to the voters could wind up on its ass. It's to Wolff's benefit at this point to say Oakland isn't an option because it forces the City of Fremont to take the fall if the A's leave the Bay Area. Right now all his eggs are in the Fremont basket. Should that fall through, then everything has to go back on the table, particularly if Oakland turns around and comes up with something that makes sense. I don't think Wolff has burned his bridges. He's just being smart.

Ratto hasn't written a sane column in years.

by richwol on Jan 20, 2008 12:16 PM PST up 0 recs

I doubt the Fremont plan would ever go

to the voters. There's no reason for it to go there, since they arn't using public funds to build the stadium.

by Zonis on Jan 20, 2008 1:03 PM PST up 0 recs

And even if it did...

...your own Major League Baseball team, at no cost?

Who'd vote 'no' to that?

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

by Ozzz on Jan 20, 2008 1:30 PM PST up 0 recs

There are better things for Ratto to write about

Some days I wonder what color the sky is in Ray's world. Still, he's entertaining.

Ratto's concept so thoroughly violates Wolff's "path of least resistance" m.o. that it's hard to know where to begin.

by vertig0 on Jan 20, 2008 2:57 PM PST up 0 recs

A Reason...

There are environmental and transportation issues, and while the project increases the city's tax base, it does nothing for pre-existing businesses.

Because the stadium is privately financed, some voter concerns go away, but not all of them. There will be impacts, and unless one is an A's fan or overly concerned with city tax revenues, those impacts will not be particularly positive.

by richwol on Jan 20, 2008 3:32 PM PST up 0 recs

Just because

Lew said Oakland isn't an option doesn't mean if fremont fell through they can't stay in oakland. People say whatever it takes to get what they want in these situations, only to turn around and say "Oh, it wasn't as bad as you heard. It wasn't meant the way it was written. We are on good terms still". Then they kiss and make nice like nothing happened. Look what they Radiers did to the city. If the A's wanted to stay in oakland, they will. Its not like the Coliseum is going to be demolished in 2012. The only timetable there is, is the one the A's have to build the new stadium. They won't be kicked out.

by ChickenStanley on Jan 21, 2008 8:29 PM PST up 0 recs

I agree, and expect to still be watching

the A's in Oakland in 2012 and beyond. If that is correct, the unfortunate part is that they will have not added to their fan base due to the years of "the A's are moving".

It ain't my money, but I say let's get the boys together and take another shot.--Swish

by alamedaman on Jan 27, 2008 10:07 AM PST up 0 recs

historically, maybe

The sense I get, though, is that (a) MLB ownership, individually and in aggregate, have never forgiven Magowan for self-financing (albeit with some cheap public land) his stadium, (b) Selig loathes Bonds with a white-hot passion, (c) MLB is, as you and vertig0 have often pointed out, highly invested (in all senses of the term) in the success of the Wolffisher ballpark-village model, and (d) Selig is palsy-walsy with Wolff.

If there's a Bay Area franchise that MLB favors right now, I don't think it's the Giants.

That being said, a Fremont stadium in some form is still the likeliest outcome.

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

by monkeyball on Jan 21, 2008 12:46 PM PST up 0 recs

I agree with everything you say, except...

...the part about the Giants having to "give back" their territorial rights. MLB is not a democracy. Rights that are given can also be taken away. It wouldn't be easy, but it could be done if the right people within MLB could be convinced it was in their best interests.

That being said, I don't think it will happen.

"Rebuilding" is loser mentality.

by UncleLeo on Jan 20, 2008 3:15 PM PST up 0 recs

Actually, MLB is a democracy

the Owners would have to vote on it.

by Zonis on Jan 20, 2008 3:17 PM PST up 0 recs

Maybe Congress should get involved ...

pass an MLB Owners' Bill of Rights ...

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Jan 20, 2008 3:18 PM PST up 0 recs

But won't that just lead to another strike

once the Players Right's Movement comes along?

by Zonis on Jan 20, 2008 3:20 PM PST up 0 recs

It won't go anywhere ...

some players will find the idea that they need their rights defended as a separate class offensive.

Others will be concerned that it will force them to submit to the draft (again).

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Jan 20, 2008 3:35 PM PST up 0 recs

So you agree...

...that the territorial rights wouldn't have to be given back and that they could be taken away.

"Rebuilding" is loser mentality.

by UncleLeo on Jan 20, 2008 3:58 PM PST up 0 recs

It's unlikely to happen ... but it is absolutely

true.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Jan 20, 2008 4:08 PM PST up 0 recs

see: Orioles vs MLB on Nationals Relocation to DC

by Zonis on Jan 20, 2008 4:30 PM PST up 0 recs

Of course.

What MLB giveth, MLB can taketh away. Seriously, the A's originally held the rights to SJ. They were ceded to the Giants so they could pursue a stadium in SJ. Since the deal was never consummated Selig can decree that they revert back to the A's so that they can now pursue a stadium in SJ. Assuming of course that a ballpark in SJ is what MLB desires.

"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 20, 2008 5:40 PM PST up 0 recs

Technically

I believe Santa Clara County was unassigned territory prior to 1992 or so. At that time is was given to the Giants, and the A's didn't protest.

The A's never owned the territory.

I could be wrong.

by jeffro on Jan 21, 2008 2:59 PM PST up 0 recs

In every other two team market ...

territory hasn't been divided. New York is New York. The Yanks have no more official claim to the Bronx or the Mets to Queens than the other team. The Cubs are free to market in South Chicago and the Angels are even allowed to name themselves Los Angeles, even though it's a city in an entirely separate county with its own baseball team.

To my knowledge, the situation in the Bay Area, where a common market is officially divided is completely unique (and unfair, given that the A's were given two counties and the Giants six).

I'm not sure why it is that way -- and if anyone knows, I'd be very curious to learn.

But to actually respond to your post in some way ... you're correct, Santa Clara was not part of the Giants territory until the late 80s and it was basically made permanent when it was reaffirmed in Magowan's 1995 purchase agreement.

"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback

by devo on Jan 21, 2008 5:20 PM PST up 0 recs

True That

by jeffro on Jan 22, 2008 7:49 AM PST up 0 recs

hello!

the giants got busted, but don't think the A's are free of any role in the steroid-era. Ray's article would be headed in the right direction, if, the A's were choir boys. We may be in for our own sanctions. There's no way this is going to lead to a boondoggle for the A's. Sells papers, but this ain't gonna happen.

by GrewUpAtTheColiseum on Jan 20, 2008 6:27 PM PST 0 recs

The difference in the Giants case with the steroi

issue, is the Giants trainer told Sabean he suspected Anderson, there is no one saying they told the A's brass anything. They can't sanction the A's for the same thing every other Major league team did. The Giants are the only team who was warned and ignored it.

by theblackpearl on Jan 20, 2008 7:58 PM PST up 0 recs