If the Raiders do leave the Coliseum the better option might actually be to go back to one of the HOK Sport explored options back in the late 90's which was building a new baseball stadium in the north parking lot of the Coliseum and then demolishing the entire 43 year old stadium, Mt Davis and all.

That'd solve the site problem, but not the money problem - somebody would still have to pay to build it. For bang for their buck, I wonder if the A's wouldn't be better off going the Royals' route, glitzing up the Coliseum with high-end concessions and miniature golf and stuff. There's plenty of room there to expand.

Assuming the A's want to stay in Oakland, which I highly doubt at this point, the only issue I see with that is the Coliseum's inherent deficiencies. It was built as a multipurpose stadium and as such it's not a good venue for any sport like the rest of the breed (a breed that is all but extinct now). They Royals stadium was built as a baseball stadium and as such it is still a good baseball stadium today worth being upgraded. For the money it would take to demo Mt. Davis and glitz up the Coliseum the A's would be better off just going for an actual baseball stadium either in Oakland or San Jose.

I see your argument - I've sat in seats down the lines at the Coliseum, and know how the multipurpose shape means you're two miles from the field horizontally. But I'm not sure I'm convinced. It cost the Angels about $100 million to demo the Rams' seats in the outfield and glitz up Anaheim Stadium; even if the A's had to spend double that, it'd be way less than the cost of a new stadium.

Of course, the likely deciding factor will not be "What's most cost-effective?" but "What can we get public money for?" so this argument is likely to be academic.

Actually I think the deciding factor will be more along the lines of, "can the A's ownership afford it." Public financing is a non-starter in the Bay Area. It's why the favorite son Giants couldn't even get public money for what became AT&T Park despite 15 years of trying at various times from San Francisco, San Jose and Santa Clara. It's the same reason that Santa Clara will never happen for the Niners when it comes to a vote. Which brings me back to the Coliseum and why Mt Davis will not be demolished, Oakland and Alameda County are STILL paying for it. They won't demolish something they're still paying for and won't pay for further improvements to the Coliseum even if they could get public support. And the A's won't use private money to do a major rennovation to a public venue they have no control over, nor should they as it wouldn't make sense. Which to my mind leaves two options. Play at the Coliseum as is or build a new stadium with private money in SJ or Oakland.

Here is a scenario not being discussed that could eventuate: The Raiders leave Oakland for San Antonio or Salt Lake; the 49ers play at Stanford Stadium or U Cal's Memorial Stadium in Berkeley for two seasons while Candlestick is razed and a new state of the art stadium is built; and the Athletics play at the SF Giants field while the Coliseum is razed and a new Taj Mahal for the Athletics is built. This could be completely realized by 2013 or 2014.

"Still paying for" is just an accounting trick: Mount Davis is a sunk cost, so it shouldn't matter to Alameda County whether they still have payments left to make on it.

Anyway, a new private stadium in Oakland would seem to have the same problem, as you'd need to tear down the Coliseum for parking. San Jose makes more sense, but that might have to wait for Bud Selig to drop dead and his successor to lock the A's and Giants in a room and figure out compensation for the Giants' territorial rights. Though even then, I really doubt that the A's would pull in enough revenue to justify both covering 100% of construction costs and paying off the Giants.

San Antonio and Salt Lake are both really small in MLB terms (#28 and #30 media markets, just ahead of Norfolk - oof), and neither is likely to build a baseball stadium in the next five years. Sacramento, or even Portland, seems more plausible, but I'd still put my money on East Bay/South Bay.

Maybe I need an A's relocation odds chart like the one I did for the Expos a few years back...

Actually I don't think Bud is an obstacle to the A's moving to San Jose anymore. With the ownership change in San Francisco he's no longer as intimate with that team, and at the same time he's very intimate with the A's ownership now. So if the A's want it, Bud will facilitate making it happen would be my view of the situation. As for a "relocation odds" matrix, in this economy with the lack of viable alternate cities I'd think such a matrix would be pointless. The A's won't be moving any more than the Yankees. Same goes for the Rays. Right now there's just not any viable alternative cities, particularly considering despite their "bad" stadium and red headed step child status the A's don't draw half as bad as the Expos in their final year.

Dan, please stop spouting off crap like it's the truth. Bud will not allow the a's to move to SJ ... period. Neil is dead on accurate on that one. Secondly, the Giants did NOT have a change in ownership. They had a change in Managing General Partner. Neukom was already one of the owners, Magowan remains one of the owners. Larry Baer is the president. Get the facts straight, buddy. A's ranked 27th in MLB in home attendance this year out of 30 teams ... sounds pretty montrealish to me ... Sacramento remains a better alternative than anything else in my mind ... that is unless you go down the termination of franchise route.