A's/Giants to share AT&T Park next year?

[DSpivack]

Originally Posted by TDog

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.

What do you think the endgame will end up being for the A's? Move to another metro area?

[blandman]

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.

How did the White Sox do in 2006? Maybe we should make statements based on that? The Giants and Angels (even with their singular down season) have been perennial playoff machines. That's what drives their attendance.

You're right that the Padres draw, but San Diego is a weird city in that it's got a large military population that really helps with attendance, and they host several military themed games and programs because of it.

A more apt comparison for the Dodgers would be the Yankees. And even that's not as good because the Dodgers don't share L.A.

My point is there's a million things to do in California compared to cities like Atlanta or any of the smaller cities in the midwest. Add in way worse traffic, and regular trips to the ballpark are not really worth it unless the teams are playing well.

[DSpivack]

Originally Posted by blandman

How did the White Sox do in 2006? Maybe we should make statements based on that? The Giants and Angels (even with their singular down season) have been perennial playoff machines. That's what drives their attendance.

You're right that the Padres draw, but San Diego is a weird city in that it's got a large military population that really helps with attendance, and they host several military themed games and programs because of it.

A more apt comparison for the Dodgers would be the Yankees. And even that's not as good because the Dodgers don't share L.A.

My point is there's a million things to do in California compared to cities like Atlanta or any of the smaller cities in the midwest. Add in way worse traffic, and regular trips to the ballpark are not really worth it unless the teams are playing well.

And all the teams, besides Oakland, draw well regardless of that. Everything above that is you trying to excuse facts away to fit your nonsensical argument.

[blandman]

Originally Posted by DSpivack

And all the teams, besides Oakland, draw well regardless of that. Everything above that is you trying to excuse facts away to fit your nonsensical argument.

Anaheim and San Fran have not always drawn well, and when San Fran's up Oakland, if they're good as well, can only draw modestly (and draws terribly in any other scenario). That's not nonsensical, that's history. The area can't support two teams.

[DSpivack]

Originally Posted by blandman

Anaheim and San Fran have not always drawn well, and when San Fran's up Oakland, if they're good as well, can only draw modestly (and draws terribly in any other scenario). That's not nonsensical, that's history. The area can't support two teams.

The Giants have also drawn well in the new park.

And I still think the A's problem is the Coliseum moreso than anything else.

The nonsensical argument I was referring to is that there is just so much more to do in the state of California that makes teams not draw well. Everyone but the A's draws fine.

[blandman]

Originally Posted by DSpivack

The Giants have also drawn well in the new park.

And I still think the A's problem is the Coliseum moreso than anything else.

The nonsensical argument I was referring to is that there is just so much more to do in the state of California that makes teams not draw well. Everyone but the A's draws fine.

St. Louis has 300,000 and sells out 40,000 people a night. Atlanta has 400,000 people and sells over 30,000 people a night. Those numbers are consistent, win or lose, and represent a tremendous percentage of the population.

By comparison, Oakland is twice as large as St. Louis and draws in a good year while the Giants are down what we draw in a bad year (for example, see this year). In a best case scenario they draw what we do in our worst case scenario. That is not an area that can sustain two teams, and it's not just because of population. It's because the population isn't, for whatever reason, as interested in baseball as other regions of the country.

[TDog]

Originally Posted by DSpivack

What do you think the endgame will end up being for the A's? Move to another metro area?

I think the A's will stay in Oakland. To paraphrase Joan Didion, it has to work there because they've run out of continent. I think faced with losing its sports teams, Oakland will do something, especially if they lose the Raiders again.

In the end, I think the A's are better off where they are than relocating to another metro area.

[Hitmen77]

The A's staying put in Oakland for now:
http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-...s-on-the-table

Originally Posted by blandman

Eh...the roads are pretty terrible and so is the traffic. Unless you live in San Jose or immediate outlying communities, it would be an absolute pain to be a season ticket holder.

Also, in regards to population...it's not like it's the midwest. St. Louis survives with lower numbers because everyone that lives in St. Louis is a Cards fan, and an avid one at that. That culture isn't really an option anywhere else.

If you're talking about the city alone, San Jose is the 10th most populous city in America. There are plenty of fans to be had in the immediate San Jose area.

Originally Posted by TDog

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.

I don't remember the details of the San Jose stadium deal, but I thought it was pretty much a done deal (including approval by the city) except for the territorial rights issue. I can't find any links to articles to support this though.

If I remember correctly, it was going to be privately financed except for San Jose selling some city-owned land for the ballpark (or something like that).

[TDog]

Originally Posted by Hitmen77

I don't remember the details of the San Jose stadium deal, but I thought it was pretty much a done deal (including approval by the city) except for the territorial rights issue. I can't find any links to articles to support this though.

If I remember correctly, it was going to be privately financed except for San Jose selling some city-owned land for the ballpark (or something like that).

As I understand it, the city wouldn't pay for it (and neither would the A's, else it wouldn't need to be in San Jose), but the city would make concessions. Everything I've read indicates there would still need to be a public vote. Maybe the vote has already taken place. The A's have presented it as a done deal, but they presented Fremont as a done deal before the city council turned them down. I would guess there are infrastructure issues in addition to the sale of the land. I really don't know how controversial the issue is in San Jose. (Actually, I'm typing this in Palo Alto, but I don't have time to check the pulse on the San Jose streets.)

But the only way the A's get the deal in San Jose is if they convince a super-majority of major-league owners that Oakland is beyond rehabilitation, although the attorneys for the A's have been quoted as saying the baseball antitrust exemption has to be unconstitutional. They Giants aren't giving up the territorial rights, nor should they. Of course, a quarter of a century ago, it seemed a sure thing the Giants would end up in San Jose before they built their own park in San Francisco after baseball told them they couldn't move to St. Petersburg.

I just don't see the A's deserting the East Bay for the South Bay. It isn't just about Oakland. It's the East Bay. It's Orinda and Concord, Pleasanton and Livermore. I don't live in the East Bay, but I live in A's country. The sports radio station in Modesto in the San Joaquin Valley does A's games. Even people I see in Giants T-shirts are often wearing A's caps and vice versa. Not that I consider the A's my team. I wouldn't mind at all if the A's and Marlins (which obviously doesn't have the popualation to support a major league team) were eliminated and their talent scattered in a draft.

But the A's have a nitch. Maybe Charlie Finley should have stayed in Kansas City. Maybe if the AFL hadn't challenged the NFL in the 1960s to give Oakland undeserved credibility, he would have. But in four-plus decades, the A's have establshed a place for themselves in baseball that they likely didn't have when they left Philadelphia to be an NL-only city, despite its population. Maybe if these were better economic times, they would move to Sacramento. Really, I don't see the A's leaving the East Bay and this broad section of Northern California for a place where they don't have a fanbase.

I always hated hearing people from outside Chicago (I hated the occasional Chicago comments, too, of course) telling me upon hearing I was a White Sox fan that Chicago can't support two major league teams. As much as I loathe the A's and their fanbase, as bad a baseball experience it is going to the coliseum to see my Sox, it angers me to hear that sort of thing about Oakland. I feel for the A's fans in the face of such arrogance.

[DSpivack]

Originally Posted by TDog

As I understand it, the city wouldn't pay for it (and neither would the A's, else it wouldn't need to be in San Jose), but the city would make concessions. Everything I've read indicates there would still need to be a public vote. Maybe the vote has already taken place. The A's have presented it as a done deal, but they presented Fremont as a done deal before the city council turned them down. I would guess there are infrastructure issues in addition to the sale of the land. I really don't know how controversial the issue is in San Jose. (Actually, I'm typing this in Palo Alto, but I don't have time to check the pulse on the San Jose streets.)

But the only way the A's get the deal in San Jose is if they convince a super-majority of major-league owners that Oakland is beyond rehabilitation, although the attorneys for the A's have been quoted as saying the baseball antitrust exemption has to be unconstitutional. They Giants aren't giving up the territorial rights, nor should they. Of course, a quarter of a century ago, it seemed a sure thing the Giants would end up in San Jose before they built their own park in San Francisco after baseball told them they couldn't move to St. Petersburg.

I just don't see the A's deserting the East Bay for the South Bay. It isn't just about Oakland. It's the East Bay. It's Orinda and Concord, Pleasanton and Livermore. I don't live in the East Bay, but I live in A's country. The sports radio station in Modesto in the San Joaquin Valley does A's games. Even people I see in Giants T-shirts are often wearing A's caps and vice versa. Not that I consider the A's my team. I wouldn't mind at all if the A's and Marlins (which obviously doesn't have the popualation to support a major league team) were eliminated and their talent scattered in a draft.

But the A's have a nitch. Maybe Charlie Finley should have stayed in Kansas City. Maybe if the AFL hadn't challenged the NFL in the 1960s to give Oakland undeserved credibility, he would have. But in four-plus decades, the A's have establshed a place for themselves in baseball that they likely didn't have when they left Philadelphia to be an NL-only city, despite its population. Maybe if these were better economic times, they would move to Sacramento. Really, I don't see the A's leaving the East Bay and this broad section of Northern California for a place where they don't have a fanbase.

I always hated hearing people from outside Chicago (I hated the occasional Chicago comments, too, of course) telling me upon hearing I was a White Sox fan that Chicago can't support two major league teams. As much as I loathe the A's and their fanbase, as bad a baseball experience it is going to the coliseum to see my Sox, it angers me to hear that sort of thing about Oakland. I feel for the A's fans in the face of such arrogance.

Thanks for the insight. It's hard to see another multi-use stadium and also Oakland building two new stadiums, no? Although I would think baseball teams would bring a greater economic benefit to a city than a football team (even if I'm one to think the economic benefit argument in favor of public financing stadiums is bunk). Thus, I wonder if the Raiders more likely to depart than the A's. I want to say there has been talk of the Raiders moving over the Oakland hills to a city whose name I forget.

Originally Posted by blandman

St. Louis has 300,000 and sells out 40,000 people a night. Atlanta has 400,000 people and sells over 30,000 people a night. Those numbers are consistent, win or lose, and represent a tremendous percentage of the population.

By comparison, Oakland is twice as large as St. Louis and draws in a good year while the Giants are down what we draw in a bad year (for example, see this year). In a best case scenario they draw what we do in our worst case scenario. That is not an area that can sustain two teams, and it's not just because of population. It's because the population isn't, for whatever reason, as interested in baseball as other regions of the country.

It's a shame I can't ever go to a Sox game until I move back into the city of Chicago. I grow up in Evanston, so I never went to a game growing up, either.

[TDog]

Originally Posted by DSpivack

Thanks for the insight. It's hard to see another multi-use stadium and also Oakland building two new stadiums, no? Although I would think baseball teams would bring a greater economic benefit to a city than a football team (even if I'm one to think the economic benefit argument in favor of public financing stadiums is bunk). Thus, I wonder if the Raiders more likely to depart than the A's. I want to say there has been talk of the Raiders moving over the Oakland hills to a city whose name I forget.
...

If the Raiders were to move -- again -- the city could renovate the coliseum into a nice baseball-only park, although it would take some work. The coliseum is still in run-down light industrial area, but the geographic location isn't bad. It has a BART stop, as well as a Capitol Corridor passenger train stop from Sacramento. It has its own I-880 exit. I know most, if not all of that didn't exist when the A's moved there. Oracle Arena, home of the Golden State Warriors, share the same parking lot.

I don't know if that will ever happen. The city, or maybe the county or maybe the two in cahoots, wanted the Raiders back enough that they ruined what charm the coliseum had to get them.

But I have to believe Oakland wants to be known for more than its rap/hip-hop scene. No one will ever think Jack London Square when they think of Oakland.

[palehozenychicty]

Originally Posted by TDog

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.

I have been to two A's games against the Twins, coincidentally, and it is all that you have heard and then some.

The Coliseum is not designed for anything, much less baseball.

[TDog]

Originally Posted by palehozenychicty

I have been to two A's games against the Twins, coincidentally, and it is all that you have heard and then some.

The Coliseum is not designed for anything, much less baseball.

It's even worse late in non-contending seasons when the baseball field is striped for football. The last game I saw at the coliseum, the last game the Sox played there, I had the misfortune of sitting in front of a fan who was loudly arguing with no one in particular that the coliseum was superior to AT&T, while he wasn't crudely heckling Sox players. In seven seasons of going to the games in Oakland, I've found it to be my least favorite baseball experience.

But this week at Save-Mart, a woman in back of me in line at the checkout was wearing an A's T-shirt. The cashier said he was still in mourning, and the woman said she would recover by April without being more specific about what they were talking about. And I live an hour east of the East Bay.

Really, I would find moving the A's to the South Bay or even out of state more distasteful than keeping the A's in the coliseum.

[voodoochile]

Originally Posted by DSpivack

Traveling between Oakland and San Francisco is much less a hassle, and a much shorter distance, than traveling between either city and San Jose. A move to San Jose would probably be a good one for the A's. There is plenty enough of a population base to support them there. Santa Clara County has 1.7 million people alone and is one of the wealthiest counties in the country.

Not just that but they'd hold on to their Oakland fans and grab the San Jose market in effect giving them 3X the potential fan base of the Giants. That's before we even factor in the Santa Cruz area which is only 30 minutes away from San Jose.

I'd be for it because it would make it easier to go to games. I'm looking forward to the 9ers moving down here. Might catch a game from time to time.

[MiamiSpartan]

I will never understand why the Giants would rather have the A's in Oakland vs being further away in San Jose…..
There are not many markets left that could handle an MLB team any longer….