Oakland staying put?

[Tram2Whitaker]

San Francisco Giants willing to share AT&T Park if Oakland A's move - ESPN

The synopsis of this article is, the Giants want the A's to stay in Oakland; they're offering to let the A's play in their park while they work on a new Oakland stadium, so they stay the hell away from San Jose.

[Déjà Bru]

I've familiarized myself with California geography to the point where I now know that San Jose is down the bay from San Francisco. But, Oakland is across the bay from San Francisco! Heck, you can almost see the Coliseum from AT&T Park (not really, but as a crow flies, they are close).

Now, I see in the article that "Any offer would be contingent on the A's not choosing to relocate to San Jose. The Giants' territorial rights extend to the San Jose area, and last year baseball blocked the A's proposal to move south." The question is, why?

According to Google, it's a 22-minute drive from one stadium to the other but from AT&T Park to downtown San Jose, it's 52 minutes. So why would the Giants not want the A's to find the way to San Jose? It seems that the A's are more of a rival for fans in Oakland.

Unless . . . the Giants somehow know that they draw many more fans from San Jose than Oakland and so would lose by an A's relocation, net. Oh, and according to the Almanac (yes, I still buy it in paperback, dinosaur that I am), San Jose's population was 967,487 in 2011, larger than San Francisco even, while Oakland contained a mere 395,817.

If I am on the right track and have actually answered my own question, and you are a knowledgeable person qualified to judge, please reply with a single word: "Yes." Otherwise, please explain this phenomenon.

[Faroo6]

Cash money. A majority of the Giants luxury suits are sold to companies in the San Jose area. Now if the A's had a pretty new ballpark in San Jose, those companies wouldn't bother buying suites from the Giants anymore and would purchase suits in the new A's ballpark.

The irony of the whole thing is that the A's gave the Giants the territorial rights to San Jose back in the day so that the Giants could build a ballpark in the San Jose area. That never happened and the Giants just held onto the rights. Fun fact. Its the only dual market area in MLB that has territorial rights.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by Faroo6

Cash money. A majority of the Giants luxury suits are sold to companies in the San Jose area. Now if the A's had a pretty new ballpark in San Jose, those companies wouldn't bother buying suites from the Giants anymore and would purchase suits in the new A's ballpark.

The irony of the whole thing is that the A's gave the Giants the territorial rights to San Jose back in the day so that the Giants could build a ballpark in the San Jose area. That never happened and the Giants just held onto the rights. Fun fact. Its the only dual market area in MLB that has territorial rights.

Thanks. That is ironic. A case of "strange bedfellows," indeed.

[rudel.dietrich]

The park in Oakland is not in a great location and Oakland itself has suffered heavily during the recession.
San Jose is a bit further away and has a smaller population but is one of the most affluent areas in the US

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by rudel.dietrich

The park in Oakland is not in a great location and Oakland itself has suffered heavily during the recession.
San Jose is a bit further away and has a smaller population but is one of the most affluent areas in the US

San Jose has more than twice the population than Oakland.

[mirrf]

Originally Posted by rudel.dietrich

The park in Oakland is not in a great location and Oakland itself has suffered heavily during the recession.
San Jose is a bit further away and has a smaller population but is one of the most affluent areas in the US

Originally Posted by Skipaway

San Jose has more than twice the population than Oakland.

San Jose is the 10th largest city in the U.S. by population. But more than that, there is many more big companies in the south bay than the east bay. Ya know, like google, apple, ect. The Giants don't want to give that potential ad revenue to the A's.

It's less about the people who would go into the stands, its more about who (re: companies) would buy out the luxury boxes.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by mirrf

SIt's less about the people who would go into the stands, its more about who (re: companies) would buy out the luxury boxes.

Maybe, but for that to be true suite and club seat revenue would have to exceed ticket sales revenue. I'm not sure that's true for any team in MLB, let alone the Giants.

[Déjà Bru]

So the two teams are doomed to stare at each other, almost literally, across San Francisco Bay. Nothing new for the Giants, though. From the Polo Grounds, they used to stare across the Harlem River at Yankee Stadium.

[mirrf]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Maybe, but for that to be true suite and club seat revenue would have to exceed ticket sales revenue. I'm not sure that's true for any team in MLB, let alone the Giants.

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

So the two teams are doomed to stare at each other, almost literally, across San Francisco Bay. Nothing new for the Giants, though. From the Polo Grounds, they used to stare across the Harlem River at Yankee Stadium.

It's complicated and I really don't think anyone(other than giant's executives) really knows their thought process, we can only speculate. I believe the Giants wouldn't mind if the A's moved out of the Bay Area completely, because they would benefit greatly. But they also don't want to look callous or force MLB to make a ruling on the S.J. move. So they offered up their stadium knowing that the A's will only take the it if it's their only option.

There are only 3 options for the A's. 1) Move to S.J, 2) move out of the Bay Area, or 3) build a new stadium in their existing territory. Lew Wolff in the past couple years has said #3 is not a possibility. Although things can change, I believe Lew has been sincere on that fact. He got the runaround by the city of Oakland since he bought the team 10 years ago. -That's when he started trying to get a new stadium. For years, he tried to build a stadium in Fremont (southern most part of A's territory) but that city wouldn't give him the permits to built one. Fremont basically said, "we don't want you even if it's free for us".

By saying the clubs 'will be looking at each other from across the bay for the foreseeable future' is basically saying Lew Wolff will sell the A's. That's pretty much the only way #3 will occur.

[Déjà Bru]

I hope you don't mind my continued participation in this thread, East Coaster that I am, and slave worshipper of the Evil Empire (not really - I jest), but I am interested in this topic.

Okay, here's an exercise. Fold down the other fingers of your right hand and leave only the second and third ones extended. No, I am not asking you to give anybody one of those fingers nor am I looking for a variation of the Vulcan salute ("Live long and prosper"). Don't hurt yourself doing this; go slow and carefully.

Now look at your second finger. The tip of that finger is San Francisco. The tip of your third finger is Oakland. Spread these two fingers a bit but not too far. The space between these fingers is San Francisco Bay. At the bottom of the "bay," where the two fingers are joined, is San Jose.

"Knock off the geography lesson, fool! We live here," I can hear you saying. Well, bear with me; I'm new at this, relying as I am on Google Maps, plus I'm having fun.

So to continue my word picture, running up your second finger from "San Jose" to "San Francisco" is Interstate 280. Visualize Interstate 880 on your third finger as the way to "Oakland."

Here's my point. ("Finally," you say.) Unless you are weird, your second finger is longer than the third, but not by much. Moreover, I280 takes a less direct route to its destination than does I880 (I am discounting Route 101 which looks from the map to be a more local, less limited access, and therefore takes longer to get there). Is it not easier and quicker to get from San Jose to Oakland than it is from SJ to San Francisco?

So here's my point ("You said that already," you say.) BOTH teams ought to be able to milk the San Jose market for fans, marketing, and media. Therefore, perhaps it's not so bad an idea that the A's stay where they are and build a modern stadium (and win more games, by the way) to tap into that SJ market. Seems fair to me. It seems unfair to me for the A's to expect to plop themselves into the market in order to dominate it. I wouldn't expect the Giants to be happy about that or for MLB to allow it.

[mirrf]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

I hope you don't mind my continued participation in this thread, East Coaster that I am, and slave worshipper of the Evil Empire (not really - I jest), but I am interested in this topic.

I like talking about the A's to anyone and everyone.

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Here's my point. ("Finally," you say.) Unless you are weird, your second finger is longer than the third, but not by much. Moreover, I280 takes a less direct route to its destination than does I880 (I am discounting Route 101 which looks from the map to be a more local, less limited access, and therefore takes longer to get there). Is it not easier and quicker to get from San Jose to Oakland than it is from SJ to San Francisco?

So here's my point ("You said that already," you say.) BOTH teams ought to be able to milk the San Jose market for fans, marketing, and media. Therefore, perhaps it's not so bad an idea that the A's stay where they are and build a modern stadium (and win more games, by the way) to tap into that SJ market. Seems fair to me. It seems unfair to me for the A's to expect to plop themselves into the market in order to dominate it. I wouldn't expect the Giants to be happy about that or for MLB to allow it.

By car, it takes a little more time to get to AT&T park from San Jose than to O.co Coliseum from San Jose. But it's more about road conditions, traffic, ect than actual geography. And I'd say it's in the magnitude of 15 minutes longer, so it's not a big deal at all.

It's not about the A's moving there explicitly for the market, it's the only place in the bay area that is willing to build a stadium. The A's have (arguably) the worst stadium in MLB and want a new stadium. Oakland said no. San Jose said yes in 2009.

The A's have asked MLB if they could move there. MLB & Bud Selig hasn't made a decision in 5 years. Basically, Bud wants the A's and Giants to 'work it out for themselves'. But since the Giants don't want to talk, the matter goes un-addressed.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by mirrf

I like talking about the A's to anyone and everyone.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by mirrf

It's not about the A's moving there explicitly for the market, it's the only place in the bay area that is willing to build a stadium. The A's have (arguably) the worst stadium in MLB and want a new stadium. Oakland said no. San Jose said yes in 2009.

And thanks for this additional tidbit of which I was unaware and which makes the A's look better for their intentions. I can see why this situation is jammed up worse than the "Novato Narrows" of Route 101 during rush hour! Well, I'll be following the story.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

I hope you don't mind my continued participation in this thread, East Coaster that I am, and slave worshipper of the Evil Empire (not really - I jest), but I am interested in this topic.

Okay, here's an exercise. Fold down the other fingers of your right hand and leave only the second and third ones extended. No, I am not asking you to give anybody one of those fingers nor am I looking for a variation of the Vulcan salute ("Live long and prosper"). Don't hurt yourself doing this; go slow and carefully.

Now look at your second finger. The tip of that finger is San Francisco. The tip of your third finger is Oakland. Spread these two fingers a bit but not too far. The space between these fingers is San Francisco Bay. At the bottom of the "bay," where the two fingers are joined, is San Jose.

"Knock off the geography lesson, fool! We live here," I can hear you saying. Well, bear with me; I'm new at this, relying as I am on Google Maps, plus I'm having fun.

So to continue my word picture, running up your second finger from "San Jose" to "San Francisco" is Interstate 280. Visualize Interstate 880 on your third finger as the way to "Oakland."

Here's my point. ("Finally," you say.) Unless you are weird, your second finger is longer than the third, but not by much. Moreover, I280 takes a less direct route to its destination than does I880 (I am discounting Route 101 which looks from the map to be a more local, less limited access, and therefore takes longer to get there). Is it not easier and quicker to get from San Jose to Oakland than it is from SJ to San Francisco?

So here's my point ("You said that already," you say.) BOTH teams ought to be able to milk the San Jose market for fans, marketing, and media. Therefore, perhaps it's not so bad an idea that the A's stay where they are and build a modern stadium (and win more games, by the way) to tap into that SJ market. Seems fair to me. It seems unfair to me for the A's to expect to plop themselves into the market in order to dominate it. I wouldn't expect the Giants to be happy about that or for MLB to allow it.

I don't think you realize how horrible traffic can be. Driving to games on work days is no fun. Even if you take Caltrain, you'd have to be at San Jose station at 10am for a 1:30pm game.

The best for MLB is to move the A's to or close to San Jose. Fremont would have been reasonable.

[Tram2Whitaker]

Originally Posted by mirrf

I like talking about the A's to anyone and everyone.




By car, it takes a little more time to get to AT&T park from San Jose than to O.co Coliseum from San Jose. But it's more about road conditions, traffic, ect than actual geography. And I'd say it's in the magnitude of 15 minutes longer, so it's not a big deal at all.

It's not about the A's moving there explicitly for the market, it's the only place in the bay area that is willing to build a stadium. The A's have (arguably) the worst stadium in MLB and want a new stadium. Oakland said no. San Jose said yes in 2009.

The A's have asked MLB if they could move there. MLB & Bud Selig hasn't made a decision in 5 years. Basically, Bud wants the A's and Giants to 'work it out for themselves'. But since the Giants don't want to talk, the matter goes un-addressed.

So, would the deal addressed in the article is San Fran's idea of a "good-faith" counter offer, to keep the A's lawyers busy? If I were Wolff, I'd respond with "see you in court"

I don't know though; between this dispute and Mayor Foster's grip on the Rays (refusing to let them play in Tampa), territorial issues seem to be a real hot button issue. Imagine if this were the case back when the AL was forming, and it intentionally put its teams in NL markets. It didn't seem nearly this difficult when the MLB put the Expos in Washington; or was that because Bud Selig said so?

[mirrf]

Originally Posted by Tram2Whitaker

So, would the deal addressed in the article is San Fran's idea of a "good-faith" counter offer, to keep the A's lawyers busy? If I were Wolff, I'd respond with "see you in court"

I don't know though; between this dispute and Mayor Foster's grip on the Rays (refusing to let them play in Tampa), territorial issues seem to be a real hot button issue. Imagine if this were the case back when the AL was forming, and it intentionally put its teams in NL markets. It didn't seem nearly this difficult when the MLB put the Expos in Washington; or was that because Bud Selig said so?

To your first question, I don't know the Giants motives. Maybe its as simple as they wouldn't mind rent money from the A's.

MLB could be a little worried about the lawsuit. Emphasis on little.

I mean, no other industry (other than sport) would block a company from moving from one town to another. No other industry blocks one company from looking at another "territory". I don't know if the A's situation is "constitutional" or not.

Imagine if Target store bought some land in your area, your local government gave them the proper permits and the O.K. to build a store, then Wal-Mart said "sorry, no". The courts could decide that this is what's happening with the A's. It's unlikely, but weirder things have happened.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by mirrf

To your first question, I don't know the Giants motives. Maybe its as simple as they wouldn't mind rent money from the A's.

MLB could be a little worried about the lawsuit. Emphasis on little.

I mean, no other industry (other than sport) would block a company from moving from one town to another. No other industry blocks one company from looking at another "territory". I don't know if the A's situation is "constitutional" or not.

Imagine if Target store bought some land in your area, your local government gave them the proper permits and the O.K. to build a store, then Wal-Mart said "sorry, no". The courts could decide that this is what's happening with the A's. It's unlikely, but weirder things have happened.

The court battle for this is still ongoing. It's now at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

[greenie25]

Originally Posted by Tram2Whitaker

It didn't seem nearly this difficult when the MLB put the Expos in Washington; or was that because Bud Selig said so?

In order for a team to relocate, it needs ownership approval (I believe it's 75%). The relocation of the Expos to D.C. wasn't an issue because the vast majority of owners voted to approve it (only Orioles owner Peter Angelos dissented).

I don't think the commissioner alone can block a team from relocating; otherwise it's doubtful the Athletics would have left Kansas City when they did.

[BostonRS14]

Originally Posted by Tram2Whitaker

So, would the deal addressed in the article is San Fran's idea of a "good-faith" counter offer, to keep the A's lawyers busy? If I were Wolff, I'd respond with "see you in court"

I don't know though; between this dispute and Mayor Foster's grip on the Rays (refusing to let them play in Tampa), territorial issues seem to be a real hot button issue. Imagine if this were the case back when the AL was forming, and it intentionally put its teams in NL markets. It didn't seem nearly this difficult when the MLB put the Expos in Washington; or was that because Bud Selig said so?

Angelos was bought off with a nice slice of pie from MASN.

From wikipedia article:
The Orioles agreed to share its territory with the Nationals in return for the ability to present the Nationals games on the Orioles television network, the Mid-Atlantic Sports Network. The Orioles have a 90 percent stake in MASN and MLB paid the Orioles $75 million for 10 percent of the regional sports network. When the Lerner family bought the Nationals in July 2006 they became part owners in MASN. Over the next 23 years, the Washington Nationals’ stake in the network will increase to 33 percent. Under the current arrangement, MASN paid the Nationals $20 million to broadcast their games in 2005.

I don't think the Giants would be interested in something along these lines, as they already own 30% of CSN Bay Area. And I don't think the lawsuit will be successful, as baseball's anti-trust status protects them from the Target-Walmart example laid out by mirrf.

Selig doesn't want to make any more enemies on his way out the door, so he'll leave the mess for the next owner.

[mirrf]

Originally Posted by BostonRS14

And I don't think the lawsuit will be successful, as baseball's anti-trust status protects them from the Target-Walmart example laid out by mirrf.

IMO It's much more like a franchise than the example I explained. For example, if you wanted to open a McDonalds franchise, you couldn't put it just anywhere. You'd have to follow certain rules carried down by McDonalds inc, which include where you can place your restaurant.

That's why I don't think the lawsuit has much of a chance.