PDA

View Full Version : Oakland A's to Move to Fremont


PKalltheway
11-06-2006, 10:48 PM
Story link below:
http://cbs5.com/local/local_story_310175552.html

Here's my only question: Will they still be called the Oakland A's?

Lip Man 1
11-06-2006, 10:51 PM
Great...anything to get the Sox out of playing in that House of Horrors is fine by me.

Lip

WizardsofOzzie
11-06-2006, 11:00 PM
Story link below:
http://cbs5.com/local/local_story_310175552.html

Here's my only question: Will they still be called the Oakland A's?
They'll probably go with the Oakland California A's of Fremont :D:

FedEx227
11-06-2006, 11:01 PM
Whats the approx. distance between these two?

buehrle4cy05
11-06-2006, 11:03 PM
Good move by the A's. Fremont is directly between Oakland and San Jose, so they will draw from both those markets. The name change (if there is one) shouldn't be an issue.

I'm just wondering if Beane will have any hand in designing the stadium. He interferes with everything else that organization does, so why not the stadium?

FedEx227
11-06-2006, 11:06 PM
That would suck, no high-schoolers allowed in the park.

buehrle4cy05
11-06-2006, 11:11 PM
That would suck, no high-schoolers allowed in the park.

Did I miss something?

FedEx227
11-06-2006, 11:17 PM
Billy Beane does not like high-school players. In Moneyball they describe a scene where he was throwing chairs at walls because someone in the organization drafted Jeremy Bonderman. Beane stated that college players had much longer careers are were much less risks when drafted over high-school players.

His logic was for every great high school player there were 7-8 awful ones who didn't pan out. He also felt that college players were much more mature and could handle pressure much better. That's all I meant by it, nothing derogative.

SouthSide_HitMen
11-06-2006, 11:17 PM
I'm just wondering if Beane will have any hand in designing the stadium. He interferes with everything else that organization does, so why not the stadium?

Beane will have complete control of the construction of the new stadium which will be twice as good as any other built at half the cost of the least expensive stadium. For an added bonus, the new stadium will still be available for private parties and corporate events by mid October as was the case in Oakland under Beane's tenure. :cool:

buehrle4cy05
11-06-2006, 11:25 PM
Billy Beane does not like high-school players. In Moneyball they describe a scene where he was throwing chairs at walls because someone in the organization drafted Jeremy Bonderman. Beane stated that college players had much longer careers are were much less risks when drafted over high-school players.

His logic was for every great high school player there were 7-8 awful ones who didn't pan out. He also felt that college players were much more mature and could handle pressure much better. That's all I meant by it, nothing derogative.

Got it. I figured it was a reference to that, but I though they were going to have some 18-and-over policy for the park.:?:

Beane will have complete control of the construction of the new stadium which will be twice as good as any other built at half the cost of the least expensive stadium. For an added bonus, the new stadium will still be available for private parties and corporate events by mid October as was the case in Oakland under Beane's tenure. :cool:

I'm glad Beane's an idiot so we won't have to worry about losing to Oakland in the playoffs.

danjames
11-06-2006, 11:26 PM
Billy Beane does not like high-school players. In Moneyball they describe a scene where he was throwing chairs at walls because someone in the organization drafted Jeremy Bonderman. Beane stated that college players had much longer careers are were much less risks when drafted over high-school players.

His logic was for every great high school player there were 7-8 awful ones who didn't pan out. He also felt that college players were much more mature and could handle pressure much better. That's all I meant by it, nothing derogative.

Actually, the thought process had nothing to do with pressure. It was that a high school pitcher is basically an unknown commoddity, because the body matures so much from high school through the college years. So by drafting college players, although their ceiling was limited, at least they had a better idea of what they were using their money on.

Having said that, I think the A's have relaxed this theory quite a bit, because I'm fairly sure Oakland has taken at least a handful of high schoolers over the last few drafts.

FedEx227
11-06-2006, 11:32 PM
Actually, the thought process had nothing to do with pressure. It was that a high school pitcher is basically an unknown commoddity, because the body matures so much from high school through the college years. So by drafting college players, although their ceiling was limited, at least they had a better idea of what they were using their money on.

Having said that, I think the A's have relaxed this theory quite a bit, because I'm fairly sure Oakland has taken at least a handful of high schoolers over the last few drafts.

Okay, it had been awhile since I read the book so I wasn't quite sure of the detail.

But yeah, they started to back off abit. I read somewhere that some BP guy actually did a run-down and found out that the success difference between high school and college players was only about 2-3% in favor of college. I saw in the past few drafts that they had about 10-11 high schoolers per, this is staggering considering Beane wouldn't touch a high schooler from 2000-2003

thomas35forever
11-06-2006, 11:32 PM
That place used to be a baseball stadium before the Raiders moved back. It's finally time to make it used exclusively for what it's now built for.

Baby Fisk
11-06-2006, 11:33 PM
This could be a chance for a clean break. Lose the idiotic white shoes, adopt brown and black uniforms, and change the team name to the Roamin' Gypsies. This is the third time this team has moved, from Philadelphia to Kansas to Oakland to Fremont. This team has no home.

TheOldRoman
11-06-2006, 11:50 PM
This could be a chance for a clean break. Lose the idiotic white shoes, adopt brown and black uniforms, and change the team name to the Roamin' Gypsies. This is the third time this team has moved, from Philadelphia to Kansas to Oakland to Fremont. This team has no home.
http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/nfl/tenhou/WhiteShoesOil.jpg
"Don't be badmouthin' White Shoes."

goon
11-07-2006, 12:28 AM
Billy Beane does not like high-school players. In Moneyball they describe a scene where he was throwing chairs at walls because someone in the organization drafted Jeremy Bonderman.



genius at work.

Fenway
11-07-2006, 12:31 AM
Fremont is about 20 minutes from Oakland on BART ( it is the end of the line ) I don't know if the stadium location is near BART but overall a good move.

I have to admit McAfee was the most depressing baseball park I have ever been to and that includes the old stadium in Cleveland.

Mr.1Dog
11-07-2006, 09:17 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2652436

Are they still going to be called the Oakland Athletics or are they going to be called the San Jose or Fremont Athletics?:?:

DumpJerry
11-07-2006, 09:18 AM
Does Billy Beane come with the new stadium?

Edit: Looks like merger time: http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=80892

Mr.1Dog
11-07-2006, 09:21 AM
My apologies. Mods you can delete or merge.:redface:

MisterB
11-07-2006, 09:46 AM
They'll probably go with the Oakland California A's of Fremont :D:

The Golden State A's.


That place used to be a baseball stadium before the Raiders moved back. It's finally time to make it used exclusively for what it's now built for.

No matter what improvements were made after the Raiders moved to LA, it was still a multipurpose concrete donut. The A's haven't played in a ballpark since Kansas City.

Hangar18
11-07-2006, 10:13 AM
Note .....that the article says the A's will pay for the park, in part THROUGH HOUSING AND RETAIL DEVELOPMENT-ALSO ON THE SITE.

I dont think we will ever see again, any Pro sports team making the mistakes we made on our park

Baby Fisk
11-07-2006, 12:16 PM
This is the proposed stadium that was to be built in Oakland. Seating would be approx. 35,000. There is no indication whether this design would be transferred to Fremont, or junked altogether for a new design.

http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/future/athletics703.jpg

Hitmen77
11-07-2006, 12:19 PM
G
I'm just wondering if Beane will have any hand in designing the stadium. He interferes with everything else that organization does, so why not the stadium?

I heard they're going to name the place Moneyball Park at Billy Beane Field.

Hitmen77
11-07-2006, 12:25 PM
This could be a chance for a clean break. Lose the idiotic white shoes, adopt brown and black uniforms, and change the team name to the Roamin' Gypsies. This is the third time this team has moved, from Philadelphia to Kansas to Oakland to Fremont. This team has no home.

I wouldn't consider going from Oakland to Freemont as another franchise "move". Anyone familiar w/ the Bay Area know if they could still be considered "Oakland" at their new location?

Thanks for the ballpark image. Looks pretty cool. If this goes through, that's one less multipurpose stadium in the majors. Any hope of the Blue Jays ever building a baseball only park??

thegooch
11-07-2006, 12:30 PM
does the new stadium mean the pundits can stop referring to the A's as a small market team?

Hangar18
11-07-2006, 12:37 PM
This is the proposed stadium that was to be built in Oakland. Seating would be approx. 35,000. There is no indication whether this design would be transferred to Fremont, or junked altogether for a new design.

http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/future/athletics703.jpg

They will probably JUNK the plan, although, all they would have to do, is have Private Developers build the buildings and butt the park up against the street. This is the same "footprint" that Petco Park has ...

ewokpelts
11-07-2006, 12:42 PM
Note .....that the article says the A's will pay for the park, in part THROUGH HOUSING AND RETAIL DEVELOPMENT-ALSO ON THE SITE.

I dont think we will ever see again, any Pro sports team making the mistakes we made on our park
DA BEARS

Hangar18
11-07-2006, 12:44 PM
DA BEARS


hahahaa, I forgot about that one

1951Campbell
11-07-2006, 12:57 PM
Beane will have complete control of the construction of the new stadium which will be twice as good as any other built at half the cost of the least expensive stadium.

http://media.scout.com/Media/Image/18/189287.gif
"Now, a lot of people have been saying the new stadium is collapse-prone and ugly, but we ran the numbers and found that particle-board had a higher OBP than concrete and steel."

CLR01
11-07-2006, 01:26 PM
My apologies. Mods you can delete or merge.:redface:


Not a problem. I can see how the same topic with a title of "Oakland A's to Move to Fremont" could be overlooked.

Fenway
11-07-2006, 01:35 PM
A SF columnist thinks the move could be a disaster

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/07/SPGBDM7G5P1.DTL




The history of ballpark construction in the last 15 years has been about big-city downtowns. It is the nexus of traffic and social-activity patterns, there are businesses and restaurants and nightclubs and lots of pregame and postgame entertainment, and it has the capacity to take crowds and make the most of them. Suburban stadiums have been all but abandoned for the perfectly good reason that people drive to a park, and if they can't walk to anything afterward, they drive back home again. There is reason why they call it the beaten track -- because it has been beaten down with people with money to spend.
For all Fremont does have, it doesn't have a downtown. It has sprawl, but it is a place you go home to, not go to. San Jose isn't ideal in that way, either, but the city that is is pretty well spoken for.

I also wonder how this move will affect A's fans in San Francisco. BART is packed with fans coming from "The City" to A's games as the ride was only 20 minutes. Now it will be closer to an hour.

TDog
11-07-2006, 03:01 PM
A SF columnist thinks the move could be a disaster

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/07/SPGBDM7G5P1.DTL




I also wonder how this move will affect A's fans in San Francisco. BART is packed with fans coming from "The City" to A's games as the ride was only 20 minutes. Now it will be closer to an hour.


I've never been to an A's game in Oakland, but I've seen the stadium from a BART stop. The one thing the ballpark has going for it seems to be convenience.

Fenway
11-07-2006, 03:27 PM
I've never been to an A's game in Oakland, but I've seen the stadium from a BART stop. The one thing the ballpark has going for it seems to be convenience.

BART is planning to expand from Freemont to San Jose by 2015. Again I have no idea if the stadium footprint is near BART but I would think it must be very close if the developers are planning housing and retail at the ballpark site.

http://www.svrtc-vta.org/description.asp

No question this move is based on being close to San Jose where the A's wanted to move but couldn't because it is considered Giants territory.

DoItForDanPasqua
11-07-2006, 04:31 PM
Here's my only question: Will they still be called the Oakland A's?

Maybe they will be the Philadelphia, Kansas City, Oakland, Fremont A's?

A better question will be if they change their names from scum laden.

nasox
11-07-2006, 04:53 PM
DA BEARS


:dtroll::rolleyes:

ewokpelts
11-07-2006, 06:35 PM
:dtroll::rolleyes:emoticons aside, you cant deny that the bears and the city ****ed up soldier field FAR WORSE than whatever jerry did to comiskey 2.

MisterB
11-07-2006, 06:46 PM
BART is planning to expand from Freemont to San Jose by 2015. Again I have no idea if the stadium footprint is near BART but I would think it must be very close if the developers are planning housing and retail at the ballpark site.

http://www.svrtc-vta.org/description.asp

No question this move is based on being close to San Jose where the A's wanted to move but couldn't because it is considered Giants territory.

This map (http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&z=15&ll=37.498661,-121.964378&spn=0.016411,0.029268&t=h&om=1) is centered on the plot they want to build the park on. The future Warm Springs BART station would be about a mile and a half east, at Grimmer Bl. and Osgood Rd.. The aerial pic is a little old, as the Auto Mall Pkwy. side of the area already has a shopping center built on it (the mapped streets are accurate). And AFAIK the park design pictured previously in this thread is still the one they're proposing to build.

Oblong
11-07-2006, 08:37 PM
emoticons aside, you cant deny that the bears and the city ****ed up soldier field FAR WORSE than whatever jerry did to comiskey 2.

I came to Chicago in 2004 to see Manchester United play Bayern Munich. I didn't know about the Soldier Field renovation. For the life me I couldn't figure out what that was. Was that the same designer who came out with the Pontiac Aztec?

PKalltheway
11-07-2006, 08:41 PM
A SF columnist thinks the move could be a disaster

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/07/SPGBDM7G5P1.DTL



The history of ballpark construction in the last 15 years has been about big-city downtowns. It is the nexus of traffic and social-activity patterns, there are businesses and restaurants and nightclubs and lots of pregame and postgame entertainment, and it has the capacity to take crowds and make the most of them. Suburban stadiums have been all but abandoned for the perfectly good reason that people drive to a park, and if they can't walk to anything afterward, they drive back home again. There is reason why they call it the beaten track -- because it has been beaten down with people with money to spend.

That columnist has never been to Cincinnati. There is NOTHING in downtown Cincinnati to do after the game. There is Newport across the river, though, roughly a 10-15 minute walk from the ballpark and across the Purple People Bridge. To make things worse, plans to revitalize downtown Cincinnati have stalled numerous amounts of times. Not all cities have glamorous, glitzy downtown areas. They only built the new stadium downtown here because that was the only place to put it. If you're in Cincinnati, everything you want to do is basically in the suburbs.

Anyway, I think the move can be a good one for the A's, especially since they're drawing from the San Jose crowd too.

I want Mags back
11-07-2006, 08:45 PM
This is the proposed stadium that was to be built in Oakland. Seating would be approx. 35,000. There is no indication whether this design would be transferred to Fremont, or junked altogether for a new design.

http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/future/athletics703.jpg

nice lookinfg park. I like the big thing in center

ewokpelts
11-07-2006, 09:01 PM
nice lookinfg park. I like the big thing in center
the pool looks inviting..maybe that'll be a hotel, a la skydome(**** rogers centre)

Hitmen77
11-07-2006, 10:00 PM
A SF columnist thinks the move could be a disaster

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/07/SPGBDM7G5P1.DTL




I also wonder how this move will affect A's fans in San Francisco. BART is packed with fans coming from "The City" to A's games as the ride was only 20 minutes. Now it will be closer to an hour.

That columnist has never been to Cincinnati. There is NOTHING in downtown Cincinnati to do after the game. There is Newport across the river, though, roughly a 10-15 minute walk from the ballpark and across the Purple People Bridge. To make things worse, plans to revitalize downtown Cincinnati have stalled numerous amounts of times. Not all cities have glamorous, glitzy downtown areas. They only built the new stadium downtown here because that was the only place to put it. If you're in Cincinnati, everything you want to do is basically in the suburbs.

Anyway, I think the move can be a good one for the A's, especially since they're drawing from the San Jose crowd too.

...and what about the Ballpark at Arlington or whatever they call the Rangers' ballpark now? IIRC, that's not in downtown anywhere.

I'm not arguing that building away from an urban area is a preferable plan - it's just that it's not unheard of.

Frater Perdurabo
11-08-2006, 08:02 PM
...and what about the Ballpark at Arlington or whatever they call the Rangers' ballpark now? IIRC, that's not in downtown anywhere.

You're right. Only parking lots (shared with Six Flags over Texas) surround the entire park. (In a few years there will be more parking lots and then the new Cowboys stadium.) The entire land surrounding the park has a larger area than downtown Fort Worth, but true "destination" attractions have not been built within walking distance of the park.

The stupidest thing the Rangers ever did was not build their new stadium in downtown Dallas. (Now an indpendent minor league team plans to build a small park in downtown Dallas.)

Fenway
11-09-2006, 06:09 PM
The A's owner today suggested the name will not be the Oakland A's.

The question of whether to rename the team also is in the air, although Wolff offered "Fremont A's" and "Silicon Valley A's" as possibilities.

http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_313003157.html

The Oakland Athletics have reached a deal with Cisco Systems Inc. to build a new high-tech ballpark in southern Fremont, according to city officials who met with the team's owner.

The agreement would create a 32,000- to 35,000-seat ballpark, dubbed Cisco Field, on a 143-acre parcel held by the company. If the plan is approved by the city, the A's could begin playing there as soon as 2011.

The Critic
11-09-2006, 07:47 PM
Ugh.
If they choose Silicon Valley A's, why not just call them the Cisco System A's and be done with it?
Fremont A's is no great shakes, either.

SABRSox
11-09-2006, 09:02 PM
San Jose A's makes most sense.

TDog
11-09-2006, 11:43 PM
San Jose A's makes most sense.

Contracting the A's would be better still.

FarWestChicago
11-10-2006, 10:00 PM
Contracting the A's would be better still.:thumbsup:

Lifetime ban for bringing 'roids to baseball!

:thumbsup:

Dan the Man
11-10-2006, 10:15 PM
From that picture Baby Fisk posted, that looks like one kick ass ballpark. Seems like they have taken ideas from the BOB (Chase, whatever) and Petco. But you never know, this ballpark could be significantly less cool than that picture tell, because we know how the big spenders in Oakland roll.

SABRSox
11-11-2006, 01:24 PM
From that picture Baby Fisk posted, that looks like one kick ass ballpark. Seems like they have taken ideas from the BOB (Chase, whatever) and Petco. But you never know, this ballpark could be significantly less cool than that picture tell, because we know how the big spenders in Oakland roll.

From what it sounds like, that picture won't be anything like what the new park is. I guess Cisco Systems is going to incorporate tons of their technology into this new park, and take baseball interactivity to a whole new level. It actually sounds pretty interesting, if it all happens.

Frater Perdurabo
11-11-2006, 01:25 PM
From what it sounds like, that picture won't be anything like what the new park is. I guess Cisco Systems is going to incorporate tons of their technology into this new park, and take baseball interactivity to a whole new level. It actually sounds pretty interesting, if it all happens.

Cisco Field's outfield wall is going to be a giant rack mount full of switches and routers.