The A's are moving to San Jose?

[Malleus Dei]

If the A's do move, should they keep their white shoes?

[Green & Gold Heart]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

If the A's do move, should they keep their white shoes?

Hell yes!

[mirrf]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

If the A's do move, should they keep their white shoes?

Yes, they should also bring back facial hair. Everybody *needs* to be paid to grow a mustache.

[disposableheros]

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/6146754?FSO2&ATT=MA

[canadiancreed]

meh doesn't really matter. Arguing whether it's Oakland or San Jose for folks that don't live in Northern CA is like arguing over potato or poTAto.

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by Gastric ReFlux

Montreal

you're a bit late

[rocknfire7]

Where did Oakland suddenly get all this money?

I keep hearing they are intertaining the idea of signing BOTH Bonds and Thomas(resign).

[JDOldSchool]

Originally Posted by canadiancreed

meh doesn't really matter. Arguing whether it's Oakland or San Jose for folks that don't live in Northern CA is like arguing over potato or poTAto.

I disagree. They're moving to a place with nearly double the average household income. They're moving to a place that isn't known as a rough city nationwide. Everything about this move, including a new stadium, suggests a hefty boost in attendance. I think that's significant for a team that has managed to compete without the attendance.

Originally Posted by rocknfire7

Where did Oakland suddenly get all this money?

I keep hearing they are intertaining the idea of signing BOTH Bonds and Thomas(resign).

The money comes from new ownership and anticipation of the new ballpark. I'd be shocked if Bonds and Thomas were both on the 2007 A's. There's no way Bonds plays the outfield everyday in the American League.

[Raderick]

Originally Posted by JDOldSchool

I disagree. They're moving to a place with nearly double the average household income. They're moving to a place that isn't known as a rough city nationwide. Everything about this move, including a new stadium, suggests a hefty boost in attendance. I think that's significant for a team that has managed to compete without the attendance.



The money comes from new ownership and anticipation of the new ballpark. I'd be shocked if Bonds and Thomas were both on the 2007 A's. There's no way Bonds plays the outfield everyday in the American League.

I don't know how many people went the As games in 2006, but the capacity for the new ballpark is only 35,000.

[mrskippy]

New BP will be 35,000 seats ... not out of the ordinary. Small parks are the rage these days. It's probably why there isn't a sudden mad rush to replace Fenway. PNC, Petco, AT&T ... all fairly small. At 35,000 seats ... the new A's park would be a good fit for the market size.

I do see Bonds in Oakland in '07 ... maybe!!!

And ... the Sacramento Kings will move to Vegas. Voters said NO to a new arena.

[Raderick]

Originally Posted by mrskippy

New BP will be 35,000 seats ... not out of the ordinary. Small parks are the rage these days. It's probably why there isn't a sudden mad rush to replace Fenway. PNC, Petco, AT&T ... all fairly small. At 35,000 seats ... the new A's park would be a good fit for the market size.

I do see Bonds in Oakland in '07 ... maybe!!!

And ... the Sacramento Kings will move to Vegas. Voters said NO to a new arena.

Petco Park seats 46,000, and it was built just two years ago.

And what's wrong with Arco Arena?

[Jonzard]

Originally Posted by Dagrims

The San JosA's. I like it.

Shocked at the lack of Dagrims pun love so far. Sure its not the greatest pun.... but its the greatest one can do with the material. Bananas for Dag!

[JDOldSchool]

Originally Posted by Raderick

I don't know how many people went the As games in 2006, but the capacity for the new ballpark is only 35,000.

I'm pretty sure with the 3rd deck tarped off, McAfee's capacity was around 35,000.

[mrskippy]

Originally Posted by Raderick

And what's wrong with Arco Arena?

Too small, especially compared to a large number of other NBA arenas and actually one of the oldest arenas in the NBA at this point. There are not enough luxury suites. It is constantly sold out and tickets remain in high demand.

As to Petco ... 46,000 seats still is fairly small compared to some 50,000+ seat parks out there. It's much cozier than The Murph was (which is quite similar to the Oakland Coliseum).

[mrskippy]

Originally Posted by JDOldSchool

I'm pretty sure with the 3rd deck tarped off, McAfee's capacity was around 35,000.

Exactly, this was part of the experiment. It went over well. They kept people from buying tickets up there and forced them into the second deck. I think it was a wonderful move.

[ctorg]

Originally Posted by Jonzard

Shocked at the lack of Dagrims pun love so far. Sure its not the greatest pun.... but its the greatest one can do with the material. Bananas for Dag!

We're spoiled. We just expect him to come up with this stuff now.

[Sdpm100]

Originally Posted by ctorg

We're spoiled. We just expect him to come up with this stuff now.

I wonder if he took part in the San Jose Mercury News's naming poll?

We appreciate the humor and cleverness of Mercury News online poll participants' suggestions -- the 880 FreewA's? the San JosA's?

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...n/15959054.htm

[rocknfire7]

Originally Posted by JDOldSchool

The money comes from new ownership and anticipation of the new ballpark. I'd be shocked if Bonds and Thomas were both on the 2007 A's. There's no way Bonds plays the outfield everyday in the American League.

Ok, I guess the new ownership has money (at least for now) and the new stadium will make a big difference in both newness and location. I really hope it works out for the A's. The current location is bad.

I really don't think signing both Bonds and Thomas is unrealistic. Both are aging players. They could both possibly platoon at least part of the time, that is if ego doesn't get in the way. I really don't see both of them if signed playing a full season, after all they are both almost 40, can't run well, and have had major injuries in the last couple of years. Of course Billy Beane doesn't care about that, he wants the OBP and gap power these guys have. I can see it happening if Bonds doesn't sign with SF.

[mikev]

[quote=rocknfire7;1940800]Ok, I guess the new ownership has money (at least for now) and the new stadium will make a big difference in both newness and location. I really hope it works out for the A's. The current location is bad.[/quote[No, the current location is absolutely wonderful. Freeway access, BART goes literally right to the park, etc. The stadium they play in is absolutely a ****hole though, and obviously the city wasn't willing to help them get something done..

I really don't think signing both Bonds and Thomas is unrealistic. Both are aging players. They could both possibly platoon at least part of the time, that is if ego doesn't get in the way. I really don't see both of them if signed playing a full season, after all they are both almost 40, can't run well, and have had major injuries in the last couple of years.

Last I checked, Bonds was 42, and I highly doubt that he will sign anywhere as a platoon player. You're talking about the biggest ego in sports here, there is no way he doesn't at least get a full time DH job.

Thomas played basically a whole season last year, and is expected to be just as healthy this year.

Of course Billy Beane doesn't care about that, he wants the OBP and gap power these guys have. I can see it happening if Bonds doesn't sign with SF.

Somebody just read Moneyball I assume? Think about it for a second: as you mentioned, both of those guys had injuries and basically can't run. Why would Beane care about their gap power when they routinely turn doubles into singles? He wanted Thomas because he hit tons of homers and didn't make a lot of outs.