Originally Posted by DSpivack
I have no idea what that first sentence means.
As for the second, the Dodgers were #1 in attendance in 2013. The Giants were #3. The Angels were #7. The Padres had a bad team and still drew 26,000 fans per game (nearly 400,000 more in total than the White Sox). So, the notion that people in California don't travel to ballparks doesn't seem to hold water.
At the gate, only Oakland struggled, and they have obvious stadium issues. I see no reason why that wouldn't improve in a more heavily populated and perhaps wealthier (and surely more and closer connection to corporate wealth, with less competition with the Giants) area in San Jose. To say nothing of being in a new ballpark in any location.
I really don't see the A's moving to San Jose. I believe voters would have to approve a stadium before it could be built, although I may have missed such approval being granted. If it was waived, I missed that. I think voters in Santa Clara County voted at least twice on a proposed Giants stadium and rejected the proposal before the Giants ended up with their new park in San Francisco. The A's want to move to San Jose and San Jose city leaders and business leaders want the A's to move to San Jose, but the A's already would have moved to Fremont if they hadn't been rejected by the city of Fremont. San Jose seems more of an uphill struggle.
There is no question the A's play in a truly awful venue for major league baseball. Still, Oakland, is under some pressure, at risk of losing its MLB, NFL and NBA teams that define it. The Town could step up and offer help. I don't think A's ownership is interested, but it could be enough to hurt the A's chances of convincing baseball to allow the A's to relocate.
But even with the A's playing in such an awful place (really, it has to be experienced to be appreciated), California does an excellent job of supporting five major league teams despite having better things to do.