The Oakland A’s got Verlandered out of the playoffs last night, but that wasn’t even the most ignominious moment of their week. How about having their promotional video pulled from airing, allegedly because it might make people think that Oakland has fans and that the Coliseum is a “home” and not just a dump?
Why don’t MLB or the A’s want you to see this pro-Oakland, pro-Coliseum video?
The most obvious answer is that both MLB and the A’s want out of Oakland as soon as possible…
Six days after being pulled offline, the video surfaced again on YouTube, with the uploader claiming that baseball’s and the Athletics’ desire for a new stadium meant a hype reel promoting the magic of the old ballpark wouldn’t be on-message.
Okay, sourcing a news story to YouTube commenters is a bit like … actually, I can’t think of anything as bad as that. There’s been some speculation that the video was only ever meant to be shown inside the stadium, and was posted to MLB’s site unintentionally, though that doesn’t explain why both MLB and MLB Advanced Media declined to explain this when asked by Deadspin. Nor does it explain why it apparently never aired during pregame ceremonies, either.
If nothing else, it’s an indication of how frought everything becomes in the middle of a stadium battle: Poor A’s fans don’t even get to celebrate their city and team spirit during what turned out to be a brief playoff run, because supporting your team when you’re Oakland is grounds for controversy. Which is too bad, as there’s plenty worth celebrating.
It goes without saying what the A’s and Wolff’s motivation is for wanting that video removed. For MLB, I am sure that MLB Teams (except for the Giants of course, because they don’t want them in San Jose) do not like paying $30m to the A’s as a “Small Market” team in a place that Bud Selig refers to as a “Pit.” I do think we are in the “End Game” as far as the A’s (and Raiders) are concerned. I am predicting out of the Bay Area for the A’s. Montreal perhaps?
Why did MLBAM make it in the first place, then? It’s all very odd.
And yet the A’s fans continue to create an environment at the Coliseum as raucous as any in baseball during their “brief” (it went the max five games) playoff run despite the shenanigans of MLB and, perhaps, Wolff.
@Dean- selling out 2 of 3 ALDS games doesn’t qualify as incredible support- they rank 26th of 30 teams averaging about 22k fans- attendance for the A’s has always been low- well before any talks of SJ arose
I love that at 330pm yesterday 3 co workers and I decided to go to the play off game. Only in Oakland can you WALK UP to final game of a play off series and get tickets for $45.
Yes team has a huge following ;p.
@Geuy–and only in Oakland does a deciding game 5 with the A’s being a young exciting team- not sell out—but hey–Oakland is an incredible sports city and deserves to have someone give them a ballpark because they cant afford one themselves-
Oakland got the boot early because Moneyball doesn’t work in a short series.
What works in a short series is 1-2 dominant pitchers, and the cost of 1-2 dominant pitchers doesn’t work in the context of Moneyball. 1-2 dominant pitchers requires you to spend tens of millions of dollars to get 3-4 extra wins; however, 3-4 extra wins is the difference between WS champs and getting the boot in the first round.
Basketball is the same way: You need 2-3 guys who really can go off, even if it leaves your scoring average unchanged.
Football is the same way: The 1980’s 49ers would have been pretty good without Joe Montana… But not good enough.
I don’t know a lot about hockey or soccer, but I bet it’s the exact same deal there.
If the A’s increased their payroll 25%, it wouldn’t help. It wouldn’t get them 25% more wins, so Beane wouldn’t allow it. Oh well. If that’s the way he wants to conduct business, then Go Giants.
Well we know Owners will only increase the payroll as long as they are still in the black and making money.
Giants payroll is $30 to $40 million more than the A’s, they also do something similar to moneyball, they will not break the bank for players either win with home grown talent or get mid tier free agents (scutaro, uribe, ross etc..) to supplement – and hope for a hot streak that takes you to postseason victories.
Sorry MikeM both bay area teams manage their clubs and players pretty much the same way, except one has more cash to play around with, keeping home grown talent around longer.
A couple of timely hits (base loaded no outs game 4) and this series would of turned out different.
Gi-ants would want the A’z in SJ, but for a price (for what they expect to lose in business).
Transferring a U.S. based franchise to Canada will ignite a political firestorm (locally, statewide and federally) that MLB does not want to deal with, will make the steroid mess look tame.
It was probably produced by A’z in-house media dept.
Why would an MLB franchise media department produce this knowing the situation? Be interested if heads rolled or hands slapped internally. Don’t be surprised if animalhiphop has a connection to someone in the A’z video dept.
For 3/4’s of the schedule that “raucous environment” comes from the bleachers only, their noise not matched by the large numbers of entire sections of empty seats. If there’s a “huge following” where are those followers all summer?
How is Oak. an “incredible” sports city? 2 of the 3 franchises want to leave and he third would with the right offer.
MikeM, very good clear points.
“If that’s the way he wants to conduct business, then Go Giants.”
As opposed to doing…what? Buy those 1-2 dominant pitchers and lose more games during the season?
In any case, Gray and Colon were certainly capable of “going off” this year.
Keith: Two World Series in three years. These days, there’s only one way to improve on that.
Anyway, a judge has blocked the A’s move to SJ:
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Judge-says-baseball-can-block-A-s-move-to-San-Jose-4888296.php
Well, not quite, MikeM. The judge blocked the antitrust suit, but left in place the suit for tortious interference with San Jose’s land option with the A’s.
Whether this is going to be enough to scare MLB into forcing the Giants and A’s to negotiate a price for San Jose — because of fears that the league would have to expose its precious internal books in a discovery phase — I can’t tell yet. (Craig Calcaterra says no, FWIW.) Interestingly, this means that both Calcaterra and Roger Noll were sort of right in their predictions:
https://www.fieldofschemes.com/2013/08/09/5692/mlb-to-san-jose-on-as-you-cant-sue-us-nyah-nyah-nyah/
As people have posted before typical SF Media e.g. sfgate, failing to report the whole story…
My earlier comment was written in a hurry, so a couple more thoughts on the idea that the A’s were doomed by their reliance on a Moneyball-built pitching staff: They held Detroit to 3, 0, 3, 8 and 3 in the five games. The A’s batters set a new record for the most strikeouts in a five game series. So, no, the pitching staff wasn’t the problem.
It is interesting that despite the recent string of success by both Tampa and Oakland there’s still sentiment that they’re doing it the wrong way.
Just read the SFGate article. Interesting they would include this:
“The main obstacle is baseball’s exemption, unique among professional sports, from antitrust laws that limit the power of monopolies and allow a would-be competitor to challenge unreasonable restraints of trade.”
…and then not follow up with some explanation of how this applies to the case. Who’s the “would-be competitor” being restrained here?
SanJoseA’s on October 11, 2013 at 2:43 pm said:
@Dean- selling out 2 of 3 ALDS games doesn’t qualify as incredible support- they rank 26th of 30 teams averaging about 22k fans- attendance for the A’s has always been low- well before any talks of SJ arose
Wrong. In fact, demonstrably wrong.
The A’s finished 23rd in avg attendance, which means they aren’t even in the bottom quartile. But keep repeating the lie, some people will no doubt believe you.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/2013-misc.shtml
SanJoseA’s on October 11, 2013 at 3:18 pm said:
@Geuy–and only in Oakland does a deciding game 5 with the A’s being a young exciting team- not sell out
Well, apart from the obvious grammatical and logistical problems with that statement (one being that the only “home” team playing in Oakland is the A’s… so the A’s are a subset of 1 team which plays it’s home MLB games in Oakland coliseum…) it’s just untrue.
The attendance for deciding games for each of the 4 LDS is shown below (home team first/caps).
Gm 5 OAK Det: 46,959 (MLB cap incl upper deck 47,313)
Gm 5 STL Pit: 47,231 (cap 46,861 incl SRO)
Gm 4 TB Bos: 32,807 (cap 42,735)
Gm 4 LAD Atl: 54,438 (cap 56,000)
The games in both Tampa & Atlanta were far worse than the games in Oakland as regards capacity ratio.
Gm 1 43,021 and Gm 2 48,966 ( Turner field cap 49,586)
Gm 1 48,401 and Gm 2 48,292 (Oakland Coliseum cap 47,313 including upper deck)
The only team that was legitimately at (or over) capacity for the series finale was the Cardinals. The A’s were over their “pre Mt Davis” capacity, but were not at the present capacity for football at the coliseum (nor should their capacity include seats used only for football…) There are perhaps 2-3k seats “in” Mt. Davis that are in any way reasonable to sell for baseball, so you could potentially bump the baseball capacity to near 50k.
The two games the A’s played at Comerica saw average attendances about 1,000 fans under Comerica’s “full” capacity, but 2k over it’s actual seating capacity.
Average Rd 1 att:
Dodgers 55k
Oakland 48k
St. Louis 47k
Atlanta 46k
Pittsburgh 41k
Boston 38k
Tampa 33k
So, no, it’s not “only in Oakland”. Far from it. And these are just announced numbers… not actual fans in seats (which we know tend to be inflated numbers from all sports leagues).
Any way you slice it, A’s attendance is not great. It is, however, far from the worst in MLB. Even in the regular season, they aren’t near the bottom. There are plenty of bad things people can say about Oakland. “Fans don’t support the team” isn’t one of them.
Keith/Geuy:
But for a couple of awful Josh Reddick/Seth Smith (and other) at bats, the conversation wouldn’t be about how Oakland can’t possibly compete. It would be about how “morally wrong” it is that the Tigers (and other high grossing MLB teams) are paying the A’s and the A’s eliminate them.
It’s possible that one $15m outfielder/infielder could have put them or the Pirates or Rays over the top in the LDS. But the list of $15-25m players who didn’t help their existing teams much this year is pretty lengthy… so it’s about what you spend your money on.
If MLB was at all interested in having the reg season be representative of the post season tournament, they’d schedule games the same way. A five game series should be played in six days, max. Then you’d see teams strength across the board, not winning on the backs of two starting pitchers… (which doesn’t always happen, no… but when it does you sit in your living room thinking, “Why did I bother watching the regular season? This is nothing like baseball…”)
Interesting MikeM/Neil.
I’d side with Calcaterra on this one. If need be, MLB can pay a healthy settlement without admitting guilt on the tortious interference case… I’m not saying they will, mind you. They could win that case on merit.
But at worst, if it looks like things aren’t going their way… they can settle without revealing anything to anybody.
I don’t like to repeat this, however it appears necessary. The Cotchett law firm has already stated that it will fight MLB all the way to SCOTUS if necessary. This is no victory for the gnats mgt. or Selig, the A’s fight may have indeed only begun. The judge’s ruling for the state torts is an added incentive for MLB to settle – MLB will likely settle with the A’s before the SJ vs MLB case reaches the SCOTUS…
At this point I’m like “who cares about baseball’s ATE! Just let us have the A’s!” Wolff, Selig and MLB have to know that from a revenue standpoint San Jose is the best place for the A’s. And they also know that the A’s in SJ won’t hurt the precious SF Giants one bit. Again, let’s have TWO succesfull franchises in the Bay Area and be done with all this legal nonsense. Much like what’s happening in DC, this is a self-manufactured crisis that doesn’t need to be taking place and that could be remedied rather quickly. I know our in-house attorneys are enjoying this saga, but I’m not….
The Mark Purdy column on the implications of the Judge’s decision on the A’s and their future in San Jose is a breathe of fresh air. What a difference as compared to the stink coming from most of the Bay Area sports columnists who have a puppet string attached between themselves and the Giants’ ownership.One thing for sure about these legal actions is that the Giants can’t be too pleased about the publicity coming out from the Mark Purdy column that fully points to their involvement in blocking the A’s from moving to San Jose….cmon…sigh Oakland get the A’s a ballpark.
“Pay close attention to the next several paragraphs. They include a bunch of legal terms. But they also explain why San Jose might be in good position to eventually force an MLB settlement of territorial rights that would allow the A’s to move south. The precedent is a similar case some 30 years ago filed by Seattle in a legal chess match against baseball. That’s why the Mariners are in Seattle today.In fact, it’s downright eerie to study what happened in the Northwest three decades ago and see how much it parallels the San Jose case. The saga began in 1970 when, after the expansion Seattle Pilots had played only one season in that city, the franchise abruptly left for Milwaukee and became the Brewers. Folks in Washington state were furious. The city and county sued the American League owners on antitrust grounds, saying that baseball had violated a contract to keep the Pilots in Seattle for multiple years.The original Seattle lawsuit, just like San Jose’s lawsuit, was dismissed on anti-trust grounds but allowed to continue at the state level in another form. The suit bounced from court to court for a few years until it finally morphed into a breach of contract and restraint of trade case against the American League in the Snohomish County Superior Court. Washington’s former attorney general, Slade Gorton, admitted his main goal was simply to get the baseball owners on the stand in front of a jury because they were “a terrible bunch of people” who would help his case.Seattle’s claim was that it had lost $9.7 million in taxes and economic benefits when the Pilots breached their contract with the city and split town — just as San Jose is claiming that “contract interference” with A’s owner Lew Wolff’s deal on an option for downtown land has cost the city millions in potential revenue.The Seattle case reached a climax in 1976 when it finally went to trial and the American League owners were called to testify. The subsequent proceedings are related in the book, “Becoming Big League,” by author and history professor Bill Mullins.Gorton, leading the Seattle legal team, hired his own high-powered lawyer named Bill Dwyer. He used subpoenas to obtain documents that Major League Baseball had not wanted to provide. Dwyer also traveled the country to take depositions from AL owners and ask them why they had the right to abandon Seattle as a major league market and break a contract to keep the Pilots there.Once the actual trial began, the case really went sideways for baseball. Charlie Finley, then the Oakland A’s owner, was a loose cannon who grew flummoxed on the witness stand. Bob Short, owner of the Texas Rangers, became combative with Dwyer. Baltimore Orioles owner Jerry Hoffberger walked out of the courtroom and told a reporter: “I don’t want to go back in there — this guy’s ripping me apart.”After three days of courtroom embarrassment, Major League Baseball and the AL owners saw where things were headed and negotiated a settlement. Seattle was awarded a new expansion franchise: The Mariners.”.
Seth: There are many points of view available. Mr. Purdy may ultimately be proven correct. However, as with the article by the staff writer from the Chronicle (?) referenced the other day, staff writers are not necessarily the best persons to evaluate legal arguments and/or precedents. Even with the best of intentions and assistance from, you know, actual lawyers, they are still left to make a decision (or suggest outcomes) based on their own feelings/wants rather than proper arguments made in a court of law.
Berry said:
“… Selig and MLB have to know that from a revenue standpoint San Jose is the best place for the A’s..”
Support that argument with facts please?
If and when MLB decides they need to move the A’s (which could happen this afternoon for all I know), I can guarantee you one thing: They will not limit their potential destination considerations to San Jose alone.
If MLB decides the A’s need to move, the first step will be evaluating all potential options – including some that are not “bay area” options.
One thing the SJ advocates seem to forget is that there is no direct path from Oakland straight to SJ “just because” Lew Wolff has a soccer team and a land option there. If MLB decides the A’s are to be moved, many possible locations will be considered. The fact that San Jose is a better economic area than “oakland” doesn’t actually mean anything. Is it better than New Jersey? Than a second team in Boston? Than Las Vegas or San Antonio or Montreal or ???
If you want to work off what is “best” for MLB from an economic perspective, you’d have to be willing to consider making the A’s the third team in either NY or LA, or a second in Boston (or back to Philadelphia, which would have a nice symmetry about it, don’t you think?), Dallas, Houston… Can anyone say that those options wouldn’t be more lucrative for MLB than San Jose?
The problem SJ has is the same as those six cities… it isn’t free territory. Somebody has to be paid to allow that move. So far, the guy who has to do the paying just isn’t interested.
Berry: MLB doesn’t have a contract with San Jose (as it had, at least in theory, with Seattle in 1970). Lew Wolff does. MLB has breached no contract it has with the city of San Jose and has made no promises as to the creation or relocation of any franchise to that city. Which is why the first part of the case was dismissed.
Let’s put it another way… supposing you have a 2010 F150 that is for sale and I want to buy one. If I negotiate a binding sale contract with Neil for this truck, are you legally bound to sell it to me? If you sell that truck to someone else, are you guilty of tortious interference in Neil’s/my business contract?
Lew Wolff doesn’t decide the location of MLB franchises. MLB itself does. You can argue that’s morally wrong if you want, but you can’t argue that it isn’t correct.
You are correct in suggesting that San Jose’s goal is to force MLB into court and hope that they will cave and offer something (an expansion franchise is the best outcome they can hope for… and frankly, something I think would be a reasonable outcome for all parties… as noted before, it’s the kind of ‘judgment of solomon’ solution I hoped Selig might choose). However, the suggestion that “they did it before” (in both Seattle and Tampa, actually) is no guarantee that they will do so again.
Personally, I don’t think SJ’s goal is to necessarily get the A’s. I think their goal is and always has been to win an expansion franchise. It’s been abundantly clear they were using the Seattle Pilot/Tampa Bay Devil Ray playbook from the beginning. It’s a dangerous game to play. They might be putting themselves on an MLB “do not consider” list forever.
While I think it would be a good thing if SJ’s legal team do challenge MLB’s antitrust exemption and “take it all the way”, I have my doubts they will do that (and it’s possible that the SC will refuse to hear it if they do – SJ is pretty clearly not challenging it on the grounds it is morally “wrong” but because “other cities have an MLB team and we want you to make MLB give us one too”, which is not really the kind of thing Supreme Courts are supposed to do…)
You seem to be of the opinion that the fact that there is some precedent in similar cases makes this one a slam dunk. In fact, it does no such thing. BTW, you didn’t mention who the nefarious owner who spirited the Seattle Pilots away to Milwaukee (with the full support of MLB) in 1970 was… I’m sure you know… a little known car dealer named Selig.
this lawsuit brought on by San Jose should not have had anything to do with the revoking of MLB’s ATE. The Judge’s ruling confirmed that point. However, the lawsuit should have been about the unfairness coming into play when two exact type businesses share the same market, but one business blocks the other business from setting up shop in the site of their own choosing. The sole purpose of the former’s action is to maintain a strong competitive advantage over the latter within their shared market. The long-range goal of the former is hopefully to eliminate the competition from the latter, or at worst make the latter competitively irrelevant. The dispute between the Giants and the A’s is a specific example. In this case, the Giants are blocking the move of the A’s to San Jose for no other reason than to maintain a distinct competitive advantage over the A’s within their shared Bay Area MLB market. The Giants are using MLB’s ATE and the fact that MLB approved the division of the Bay Area market into two distinct separate territories, as the basis for blocking the A’s from building their own badly needed new ballpark on the site of their choice.I believe that a court will ultimately rule in favor of San Jose and force MLB to approve the A’s move to San Jose. However, San Jose must show proof to the courts that MLB’s erroneous actions were based without regard to the following facts:1. That MLB’s ATE was not intended to be applied to MLB franchises already sharing the same market.2. That the terms “territory” and “market” is meant to be one and the same, and must be consistent with all the other shared two team markets within MLB.3. That the A’s granting to the Giants “territorial exclusivity” to the South Bay was not necessary, and was solely based at that time on an anticipated move of the Giants to that area. However, the Giants never moved there and remained in San Francisco. As a result, the A’s offer should have been considered null and void. With that fact, the Giants so called “territorial rights” to the South Bay should not have been included in MLB’s constitution.4. Finally, Since the A’s did not receive any compensation from the Giants for erroneously giving up their so called “territorial rights”, the A’s should not have to give up any compensation back to the Giants, if MLB does correct their error and reverts the entire Bay Area back to a fully shared market.
P.s
O and John I can tell your a either Oakland or out of the bay area type of guy…cmon man.
Also Berry to chime in…I feel that San Jose city officials would be wise to continue challenging the MLB ATE, (judging by their opinions and actions, they are likely to do that anyways)- that way they can keep up the pressure on MLB and the gnats mgt. with a two-pronged attack – the state torts, and continuing to challenge the MLB ATE. And besides living in san jose myself i fully support the mayor effort to get the A’s a new home. What has Jean Quan done???
Lew-Lew has strings attached to many other media types, mostly in SJ.
A’z should have stood up at the semi-annual owners
meetings during the previous 20 years and declared
their “gift” of SC county null and void, but they sat on their hands and watched a previously weaker competitor surpass them with ease.
The A’z allowed it to happen expecting to get a gift mallpark form some sucker town in the east bay. Only SC county is “off limits except for a price”, Hayward in Alameda co. wasn’t but the A’z
assumed incorrectly that the Gi-ants would let them invade an area that Larry B & co. have carefully cultivated on the MLB and MiLB level.
No different than common law marriages, the FACT that A’z ownership never made an attempt in public to back off their “gift” for almost 20 years will make their effort extremely difficult.
A relocation of the SJ Gi-ants will be involved also, which are majority owned by the big club. This won’t be cheap either since there’s no comparable open market in Cali. to move to.
All any court can do to “hurt” MLB/Gi-ants is to try to
force them into paying $ damages to Wolf-ie & co. and Gi-ants lawyers will tie that up in knots for years.
Relying on the courts to hand SJ to the A’z on a free platter is misguided wishfulness at best, judges are uncomfortable messing with the internal affairs of big league sports industries – even on the federal level.
This week’s “decision” bears this out by dismissing
the main points and passing the buck to another court to deal with the left over crumbs so that he can’t be accused of shutting the A’z out.
Before you try to use the “out of area” stuff, I was there for 7 years and had personal sources like John Shea at my disposal.
John B: Do you think the Bay Area could actually support three teams? I’m not even sure the L.A. area could, and it’s quite a bit bigger.
For that matter, I know it’s gospel among San Jose A’s advocates that the A’s could move from the East Bay to the South Bay and would dramatically increase their own revenue without affecting the Giants at all, but I’d still like to see some evidence of that. Would SF+SJ bring in more money cumulatively than SF+Oak? Possibly. Would it bring in so much more that it could pay for a new stadium, an increased A’s payroll, Wolff’s profits, an offset for the revenue-sharing checks the A’s would no longer be receiving, while also keeping Giants revenues where they are? That would take an awful lot of Google execs who are currently sitting on their wallets because they’re waiting for the ballpark to come to Muhammad.
@Neil
Sigh here we go again
We all just saw Detroit/Oakland Series… right??? In good ol Detroit… The Tigers have a modern-era, contemporary ballpark with all the bells and whistles to attract fans. It opened the same month as ATT Park in San Francisco. The A’s play in a nearly-50-year-old, deteriorating, sewage-spewing football stadium….NEIL WHY THE HELL should Lew Wolff build a small ballpark next to the Coliseum without 0 contribution from the city of Oakland and lack of corporate support in the area….cmon Neil.. Think… the SF Giants would not even be in the Bay Area today if it wasn’t for the generous Walter Hass back in the early 90’s… Im from Berkeley/Oakland area and I love my A’s… but Oakland as a city has not been successful of maintaining their sports teams.. you can cry about taxpaying stadiums all you want… but that is the business … Oakland is not a exception… so Neil will you tell me would you build in Oakland or in San Jose…. im from Oakland and I would build in San jose unless the city of Oakland can provide a way I can get my investment back.. ill even be nice and work with Oakland on a payback plan they can afford… but $$0 toward a new A’s ballpark in Oakland???? No free stadiums for any city.
If I were Lew Wolff, I would obviously prefer to build in San Jose than Oakland. Though I’d actually even more prefer to build in San Francisco, or Brooklyn. Or better, get someone else to build me a stadium in Brooklyn. And give me a million rubies. And a pony.
I do like “No free stadiums for any city,” though. Maybe we can extend it: “No free millionaires! Stop cities from getting a free ride on income taxes without paying their wealthy to live there!”
Regarding expansion in San Jose, it isn’t happening. If the Giants consider SJ to be their territory and are fighting tooth and nail to keep the A’s out then why the heck would MLB allow an expansion team to San Jose?
The Giants don’t want ANY competition in the bay area. I think that’s the main thing we all keep missing. By making things so tough on Wolf in his quest to move to SJ, the Giants are in essence forcing him to look to Portland, Montreal, San Antonio and Vegas. But even if that doesn’t happen and the A’s make their way to San Jose, the Giants will at least be financially reimbursed for giving up their territory and will now have the East bay ripe for the picking. After all, the east bay is closer to AT&T Park than the south bay is and there will be tons of bitter A’s fans who will be looking to jump ship to the Giants since their old team will be 40 miles away.
And the A’s will still be the only competition in the bay area. Expand to San Jose and you not only lose the SJ “market” but you still have the OAKLAND A’s to compete with. The only 3 team market in America is the NHL in New York and judging by attendance figures in Newark and Long Island, that doesn’t work well. Expecting the bay area, less than half as populated as the tri state area, to be successful with 3 MLB teams is a serious long shot at best.
Neil: No, I do not think the Bay area (which, Berry, I do not live in, am not from and have no affiliation with) could support three teams. The “judgment of Solomon” notion came from a statement Selig made himself… that he might consider a decision that would please neither party (which in this case I took to mean “ok then, if you can’t work it out, neither of you own San Jose. MLB does, and if either of you want it you’ll have to purchase the rights to that territory from your partners in MLB”).
If that were to happen (and think about what parents do when you have two kids arguing over one toy…), I think both Baer and Wolff would be furious… but that they would come to an arrangement to purchase that market from MLB. Whether the Giants would purchase it to keep the A’s out, the A’s would purchase it to move there, or they would purchase it jointly (which I can’t imagine, but then again Bush 43 etc), I don’t know. But at least the “path” to SJ would be set for whomever (Sternberg?) wants it.
Berry: You are incorrect about my “Oakland” affiliation. I have no such connection.
My objection to the “MLB is hurting poor lew lew” argument is this: it’s complete bunk. Wolff cannot build in San Jose because it is a market he does not own, just like he can’t build in Brooklyn, Newark, Chicago or Manhattan.
I don’t think I can be any clearer than to say this: San Jose is not “unclaimed” MLB territory. MLB believes it belongs to the Giants, and that’s all that matters. You can’t build your garage in your neighbour’s back yard just because he didn’t put his house there. He owns the land and you cannot build or park anything there without his express consent. Period.
What part of “San Jose is not free parking” for Lew Wolff do you not understand (or disagree with)?
I have no objection to Lew Wolff moving the Oakland MLB franchise to San Jose (or economically, better yet, Philadelphia or Manhattan) if MLB allows him to do so. What I object to is the ludicrous argument that MLB should just “give” that market to Lew Wolff because he wants it.
That isn’t how business works. And I can guarantee you that if Lew Wolff owned San Jose and the Giants wanted to move there, we’d be having a similar conversation about this… Wolff would not allow it absent compensation.
Secondly, why should MLB allow only Lew Wolff this opportunity? It may have several owners in distressed markets that would like the opportunity to relocate. Why must they wait? Just because Wolff signed a contract he knew he could never honour without MLB consent?
To repeat once more, the Haas family did not “give” San Jose to San Francisco for free. They conceded that territory to the Giants if they moved there in exchange for San Francisco. It was a trade. It was not an act of generosity or altruism. The Haas family believed that having the Giants further away would leave much of (if not all) of SF for them. Quite why MLB has interpreted that trade of territories the way they have I don’t know. If Wolff disagrees with it, he does have some limited ability to pursue redress… but so far he has been unwilling to do so.
Lastly, “MLB” is not preventing Wolff from moving to San Jose as you keep suggesting. I think (like many of you) that MLB might be happy to see the back of Oakland, despite Selig’s comments to the contrary. Wolff can move to San Jose tomorrow if he offers up enough compensation to the Giants (and pays MLB a relocation fee, let’s not forget). If he was smart (and I firmly believe he is), he’d make whatever offers he has made to the Giants public. If he had done this and the number thrown out was a value MLB felt was reasonable, I believe Selig would tell Baer he needs to “accept it for the good of Baseball”.
Since Wolff hasn’t done this, do you get the feeling he may not have made any formal offers? I certainly do. He wants Baer to name a price that he can negotiate down from. But Baer isn’t trying to flog the SJ market. Wolff is making an unsolicited offer to an unwilling seller, so he has to be the first to put his cash on the table.
He won’t do that. Why does that make him the victim here?
Lew Wolff wants something that, like it or not, Larry Baer owns. Wolff isn’t Robin Hood in this scenario. Think of him like Mark Cuban buying the Mavericks… the previous owner turned down an offer of around $180m. Cuban didn’t come back at $181m, he came back at $265m or something like that. Guess what? He owned the Mavs a few weeks later.
Wolff & Fisher own what they bought – the Oakland MLB franchise. If they want to own something else, they are going to have to pay for it. What is wrong or immoral about that?
Well John and Neil
This case was about the competitive unfairness between one team against the other team playing within the same market. This did not involve the issue of one team moving to another team’s market. As a result, MLB’s ATE issue did not apply so the case was dismissed only on the ATE issue. Now that the case can go ahead at the state level, the proceedings will expose both MLB and the Giants for acting unfairly by putting the A’s at a perpetually competitive disadvantage by blocking the A’s in their own attempts to get a badly needed profitably operated new ballpark for their team..
This case absolutely does involve one team moving into another’s market. MLB has been very, very clear on that. What part of San Jose being within the Giants territory is it that confuses you?
Competitive balance has absolutely nothing to do with it (if it did, Sternberg and Bob Nutting would likely be applying to move their teams to NY immediately).
If MLB allows Wolff to move his team into another team’s designated territory for no compensation just “because”, Selig will have three or four owners on the phone before the press release has been issued… and each one will have a “signed agreement” with some suburb of NY or Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston, Dallas etc.
Please keep in mind that MLB doesn’t just have this “one” issue to resolve. And what they do for/with Wolff and the Giants has repercussions for other owners presently and down the road (Sternberg, for example, will be lease free in a few years).
Lol whatever john… i wonder MLB has to be pretty upset with Oakland over this. This whole case comes about because of Oakland’s willful neglect of the team. Disposing of the San Jose lawsuit still leaves the A’s with no new ballpark in sight. And Bud continues to look foolish having made his A’s “cannot and will not” continue in their current situation comment. They ARE continuing in their current situation – endlessly.
“This case was about the competitive unfairness between one team against the other team playing within the same market. This did not involve the issue of one team moving to another team’s market. As a result, MLB’s ATE issue did not apply…”
You got this 100% backwards, in every sense. It wasn’t about competitive “unfairness” (never mentioned anywhere in the documents regarding the case). It is about moving into another team’s market (like it or not, SF owns SJ in MLB-World). And, if you –were– right about it being about MLB unfairly using its monopoly – in some alternate universe where a business entity can be in competition with itself – then the anti-trust exemption –could– have come into play.
To me keith…After the judge’s ruling, attorney Joe Cotchett affirmed that the ruling would be appealed. The SJ vs MLB case will continue. It would be surprizing if MLB doesn’t reach a settlement with San Jose and the A’s even before the state torts case goes to court.One has to believe that Selig and MLB is now questioning what type of mess the giants mgt. has dragged them into. There is a good possibility that MLB could lose both the state torts case, and the MLB ATE. Besides, Selig recently said that the Coliseum is a dump. After the WS series, MLB will likely ratchet up the pressure to end this and settle with the A’s and San Jose.
How was the Hass “generosity” responsible for the Gi-ants still being there?
Gi-ants ownership change and CBS Sports pressure on MLB (Led by Larry B.) kept the franchise out of St. Pete. See “Stadium for Rent” by Bob Andelman.
The reason why the area can only “support”
one MLB franchise is despite the population density there isn’t enough corporate $$$’s for 2 MLB, 2 NFL, NBA, NHL and MSL franchises on top of the insanely expensive cost of living.
What evidence is there that in any of the popular “backup quarterback” markets can sustain an MLB franchise to the financial level that luxury tax payments aren’t needed?
The A’z regulars who buy the cheap outfield seats aren’t going to spend more for Gi-ants dukats and have to leave their noise makers at home.
Lew-Lew ad the A’z don’t want to part with a dime to transfer to SJ – either to MLB or Gi-ants. The “Solomon” judgment is more likely a middle $ amount between what Larry B, wants and Lew-Lew wants which is nothing.
John, you make good strong clear points about SJ but why do you think that the Philly – NY corridor can be good for another franchise?
Fans who don’t understand the biz side use words like “fairness” which has no basis in reality when it comes to the BUSINESS of baseball. Fans have to try to understand that it’s not MLB or the Gi-ants who are blocking the A’z, it’s the A’z owners wanting unrealistic terms that is holding the transfer up.
A’z are stuck where they are, which is nowhere.
@John-
“To repeat once more, the Haas family did not “give” San Jose to San Francisco for free. They conceded that territory to the gints if they moved there in exchange for San Francisco. It was a trade.” Absolutely correct–and the gints didn’t move to San Jose because the voters rejected paying for their ballpark. Since no move took place why did he gints retain SCC for zero compensation to the A’s? That’s the premise of LW/JF not willing to pay a kings ransom to the gints for SCC when they paid zero for it.
MLB has defined the bay area as a 2 team “large” market and yet it is the only 2 team market where specific counties are assigned with the A’s having 2 counties and the gints 7 counties. While the current cba includes an exception that allows for continued revenue sharing for the A’s this agreeement expires in 2016. No other 2 team large market is able to get revenue sharing. Bottom line mlb either needs to support continued revenue sharing for the A’s and leave TR as they are or they need to level the playing field by treating the SF Bay Area two team market consistent with all others.
LW will be happy to continue to accept welfare of $40M from his partners or his partners can level the playing field and fix the TR issue for him. Bottom line is its an economic decision for him no different than the gints.
@Paul
I do sometimes wonder with Oakland as a struggling city + having struggling teams not winning like they have been since the 1970’s… I do wonder myself if the Bay Area in general should be a smaller market. Maybe with the lack of public and private dollars for the A’s and Raiders… maybe its best for the A’s and Raiders to find homes outside the bay area… its only fair to those franchises.. Im from the east bay but I don’t think Oakland will see any championships anytime soon… and as painful I had to admit it… its clarity and I feel that a “divorce” will be better for all parties…. Oakland really needs to get itself together as a city…. that is why the Raiders, A’s and Warriors never got a true state of the art home…. the 49ers, Giants and soon Warriors franchises will get new homes… maybe that should be enough for the bay area… to Paul’s point.. BART issues, Cost of Living, so many problems (and greed is going on in the Bay Area…. The Raiders according to a facebook post is more popular in L.A county than ALameda county????? WOW!!!
When it comes to the Warriors, tough luck Oakland… their city leaders have had 35 yrs. to make the Warriors more of a Oakland team… but never pressed the issue… now Joe Lacob is clearly movin the team to S.F might even change the name…
ANd as for the A’s.. Oakland has had 40 yrs. to get the A’s a new ballpark… from Brown, Dellums and now Quan all failed….when it comes to San Jose getting the A’s… the city of Oakland has nobody to blame but themselves.
Which leaves me to the Raiders being 50/50 on leaving Oakland… I can understand Oakland and the Raiders up and down relationship.. but to Mark Davis credit… he really does want to stay in Oakland and accomplish getting a NEW Raider stadium in Oakland…. however the project is 300mil short… and city of Oakland is going to need tax payer help, like it or not… the only thing Oakland can try to do is beg Malik and Colony Company to help bridge the gap to make the Raider stadium come true…. so it will be very interesting to see how Oakland responds…
Neil…. do you feel the Bay Area is big enough for S.F and Oak Sports teams… or should A’s and Raiders find new homes in California or in antoher state????
“… struggling teams not winning like they have been since the 1970′s…”
No love for the Bash Brothers or Rich Gannon from Berry.
And as far as the NFL is concerned, your stadium and fan support are almost completely irrelevant as far as on-field competitiveness is concerned. With a salary cap and a Socialist level of revenue sharing, an extended period of lack of success is all about bad management. Nobody gets better in the NFL from having a new stadium. So, while the Raiders owners would like to have a new stadium, they don’t need one to be competitive.
I feel that Selig has the votes or he would have struck down San Jose a long time ago and this would all be a moot point. Wolff at that point would have given up and would sit in the Coliseum for a few more years and sell to “anyone” with pockets across the country and even letting the team leave.The A’s in a new ballpark in San Jose would be off revenue sharing their first season. Right now they have zero premium seating and their club level isn’t really one because people have to pass through it to get to the other side.In SJ, they would have a club level, field level, and state of the art suites to sell to the plethora of corporations in the backyard. Not to mention charge far higher prices for regular seating.This notion the Giants and A’s would be revenue sharing losers if the A’s move to San Jose is such nonsense.San Jose has to push the lawsuit, Seattle did and got a team, Tampa (Piazza) did and got a team….San Jose must follow suit.
@Paul and John Bladen- You guys are siding with the theory MLB can act like an illegal cartel because they are a sport or a game and that is simply wrong thinking in every sense.
The Giants have no claim to San Jose as they “slyly pocketed” those rights when the leagues combined in 1993. It was an error in the system that got overlooked by Bud Selig. Wally Haas was looking to sell the team after losing tens of millions of dollars and was a bad businessman.
Every other owner in a two team market made sure their territory was shared in 1993.
Haas along with Selig made a big oversight and the Giants took advantage. Now the Giants have a beautiful ballpark and they are making money hand over fist. They own the East Bay as well and anyone who thinks otherwise is mistaken horribly.
The A’s cannot be expected to pay the Giants for something where money “did not” exchange hands. Simply writing counties in a MLB charter is not something that should hold up. The Giants want the A’s out and show no empathy when they should be showing major sympathy as the A’s did when they allowed the Giants to try to move to San Jose in the early 1990s.
The Bay Area is the wealthiest market in the US hands down. They have 8 million people living here and two MLB teams can easily survive here and make $$ if they are placed in the right spots with the right venue….In fact another NBA team could survive here easily.
San Jose and SF are where a majority of the corporate wealth is in the market. San Jose lies 50 miles from the Giants and 35 miles from the A’s. Essentially San Jose is an untapped gold mine and for you guys to think otherwise is unbelievable.
Only 25% of Silicon Valley corporations do business with the Giants because of sheer distance. That leaves 75% untapped, if the A’s move to San Jose they will have corporate sponsors lining up and will in fact have a larger payroll than the Giants with their new found revenue.
Right now the Giants and A’s play 12 miles apart in two stadiums so vastly different it is not fair when comparing them. The A’s get no fans, when comparing them to the other two team markets in attendance only the 99 loss Chicago White Sox got less fans….barely for that matter.
The A’s won 96 games, they should be top 10 in attendance in a big market like the Bay Area.
So do not argue the A’s get fans, in fact in comparison to other two team markets their attendance is pathetic, you cannot compare them Kansas City and Tampa Bay. The ballpark is reason why 100% and their poor location in the market.
The A’s have a 10 million person TV market and are on revenue sharing….What? How does that make any sense.
It is wrong and unethical what is going on here and for either of you guys to state otherwise is wrong and unethical as well.
Lew Wolff after years of trying in the East Bay and failing requested a T-rights change to his fellow owners who have publicly have supported him (Reinsdorf, Sternberg, to name a couple).
Under due process Wolff should be granted a vote and a recommendation from the BRC as part of the process. Instead MLB delays wrongfully and that is evident in the current lawsuit.
In the end the A’s will end up in San Jose paying zero to the Giants. That is the right thing to do. What MLB and the Giants have done is “Un-American”.
You guys need to understand what is going on here is wrong. I am a lifelong Giants fan from San Jose no less and I am all for the A’s coming down to SJ. They will be supported big time and finally become the big market team they should be.
Amen sbsj…I’m sure neil amd john (who hate sports business) will cower behind “lew wolff is pushing fans away” and other lame excuses…again my prediction of future bay area sports…
San Jose A’s
San Francisco Warriors
Oakland Raiders new stadium ( Oakland as a city cannot drop the ball on this one, public funding or not)
Actually, I plan on hiding behind “the A’s aren’t actually drawing that poorly.” They finished 23rd, which isn’t great, but isn’t Marlins- or Rays-level bad.
Could the A’s be bringing in more money in a new stadium in San Jose? Absolutely. Could they bringing in more money in a new stadium in Oakland? Also absolutely, though probably a bit less money. Would in be enough money in each case to pay off the stadium’s construction costs, make up for lost revenue sharing, enable them to re-sign guys like Sonny Gray when they’re eligible for free agency, and still have something left over for Lew Wolff? Probably not in Oakland, possibly in San Jose, though it’s no gimme. And that’s if they could move to San Jose for free, which MLB is simply not going to allow — the Giants may not be decimated by losing their Valley ticket buyers, but they’d certainly lose something.
Anyway, we can argue this all night without anyone agreeing, and until and unless the A’s actually do move to the South Bay, we can’t test this proposition. I will ask one question, though: If swapping Oakland for SJ would be such a slam-dunk boost to overall MLB revenue, do you really think Bud Selig (as well as the 28 other owners) would have been sitting on his hands this long?
Also, I think I’d take the bet against the A’s ending up in San Jose (within, let’s say, ten years), if you’ll give me even odds. Not saying whether they should or shouldn’t, just as a prediction.
Not a gambling man Neil (learned my lesson after my hangover experience in Vegas) but Neil ill be glad to bet A’s will get to San Jose…get ur popcorn ready because Jean Quan and Oakland are going to have to make a decision on Raiders or A’s. Love it
By when? “Eventually” isn’t a bet you could ever lose.
You guys have been arguing over San Jose versus Oakland. But, isn’t this really a question of Raiders versus A’s? Does Oakland really have the resources to support both teams (assuming it isn’t three teams with the Warriors moving to SF).
What are the odds that a multi-purpose stadium would be built? I’d have to venture as close to 0% as possible. So, how does Oakland financially accept building two stadiums at the same time even with the owners kicking in something?
I have to believe the forcing function for the A’s to move somewhere is who gets the new stadium (A’s or Raiders)? Who knows, the A’s could end up in Sacramento, SF or Las Vegas (again) before this is all over with when they don’t have anywhere else to play.
Or both the Raiders and the A’s continue to complain and continue to play in the Oakland O.co Coliseum through another five name changes waiting for their new stadiums.
There’s also nothing to stop one team from building a new stadium while the other stays at the Coliseum.
Yes, of course. In San Diego, the Padres/Chargers situation was that with the Padres getting a new stadium (after many legal delays) and the Chargers starting a 15+ year beg-a-thon for their new stadium. I suppose given that Qualcomm and the Coliseum being roughly the same age, that’s actually a good analogy.
But, that assumes that the team having to stay in the Coliseum actually wants to stay in the city. And, of course, it assumes that the Raiders’ plans to build on top of the Coliseum site were just rumors.
Imagine how many more rumors there would be if Charlie O and Al D were still alive. Charlie O would be touring the U.S. weekly looking for new cities to pluck. Every city would be rumored to be the new home of the A’s, including Louisville and Peculiar, Missouri (another place the Charlie O tried to move the A’s in the 60s). Maybe Oakland and San Jose should just consider themselves lucky with who they are dealing with now.
Alk said it right…we dint want a san Diego situation. Its either Raiders or A’s….Jean Quan would be wise to grt the Raiders taken care of…I do agree with Quan that a dome or retactable roof would help city of Oakland caue then they can make money off other non football evemts…that way the investment would helo eveyyone
SBSJ:
@Paul and John Bladen- You guys are siding with the theory MLB can act like an illegal cartel because they are a sport or a game and that is simply wrong thinking in every sense.
“Wrong”. “Unfair”. To prospective fans of San Jose Baseball it may seem that way. Less so for Oakland fans, I would imagine.
You do understand that this is a business proposition, right? Lew Wolff is not robin hood prying an MLB team from the evil rich empire of…. ummm… Oakland, to give it to the poor downtrodden tech billionaires of San Jose. He’s a guy trying to buy an MLB team for the price of Oakland and get an MLB team in San Jose (or elsewhere). That’s all. He’s trying to get someone to give him something for nothing (ditto Sternberg).
It is not a “theory” that MLB can act as they do. It’s established fact in all major sports leagues (and a few not so major ones). Prior to 1994 (give or take), sports businesses operated a lot more like independent businesses everywhere do. That’s the fundamental reason why guys like Al Davis and Bob Irsay were able to do what they did. That’s not the case anymore (though there certainly have been cases where the leagues did not move to block relocations which they felt might be in the league’s long term interest – Cleveland Browns to Baltimore, for instance – but they still can do so).
No-one is saying it is right or just, just that sports leagues do this. It’s a bit like congressmen calling a recess on the floor so they can dash out and buy some more railroad stock from the guys in the lobby before returning to vote on railroad routes and funding (see credit mobilier scandal). Or Enron staffers/agents dispatching generating stations down on load to create rolling blackouts just so their traders can drive the price of electricity up. Or major shareholders in defense industries running for/appointed to office just before major military actions are deemed necessary.
Business is dirty. And sadly, the dirtier you are willing to be, the wealthier you often tend to become.
Paul:
Some time ago Neil posted a link to a Forbes (?) article which contained an analysis of all the major markets of North America. Essentially, it was a break down of municipal areas that showed what cities had “excess fan capacity” in terms of both disposable income and population… (there were other parameters measured of course, but those were the most relevant).
That article showed (by sport) which areas might still be economically viable for relocated or expansion teams. While there were many areas that could support an NHL or NBA team, the conclusion was that only NY-NJ had enough excess capacity to make an MLB team succeed, while Los Angeles and Montreal (!) could be considered as possible locations. And yes, a couple of the current locations were deemed unfit to host the MLB teams they had.
I mentioned Philadelphia for two reasons: First, for those who believe this argument is about “fairness”, I believe the truly fair outcome would be to give this team back to the people of Philadelphia, from whom it was so cruelly stolen in 1955 (even before the much more publicized Dodgers/Giants departure). San Jose? Cry me a river, Newbies.
Secondly, of course, Philadelphia is relatively close to south/central Jersey. So if we assume that a team relocated to Jersey wouldn’t want to be called the “Monroe Township Athletics”, or the “East Rutherford A’s”….
But perhaps I’m wrong on that… as a native New Yorker, Neil, what are your thoughts?
As in, would fans from the Jersey suburbs of NYC travel down to, say, Camden to see MLB games? I doubt it — there’s a huge psychological split between the NY/northern NJ and Philly/southern NJ markets, not to mention that folks on the east coast don’t willingly drive 60 miles for things like folks in California do.
I guess you could put a team in Trenton, but then it’d be unreachable by public transit (except expensive commuter rail) for both NY and Philly. You really have to pick one market or the other.
Omg john and neil…u two are amazing….
MLB does not want any franchise to take a bloodbath financially!!!!
It does not serve to anyone’s benefit if any franchise is taking huge financial losses. Ideally, MLB would want for all small market franchises to operate in the black with the help from revenue sharing and by responsible budgeting, which is a result of having to operate with lower revenue streams. As of now, MLB is very concerned about the question of whether markets such as Tampa Bay can ever sufficiently be able to support a MLB team.The situation in Montreal had become increasingly most difficult for the Expos during their last years there. They were unable to find sufficiently supportive local based ownership for their team. This was most crucial, since Montreal was culturally very different and distinct from all the other North American MLB markets. The local based ownership began to operate the team on the cheap, without regard to putting a respectable team out on the field. As a result, the Expos had alienated their once thriving fan base in such a way and for such a long time, it became apparent that their fans were no longer coming back…no matter what!!!
I was in BART (yes no strike today)…and I was talking to this really pro Oakland guy about sports and politics..
I’m still hearing from Oakland-only folk that there are plenty of rich people ready to build a ballpark with their own money in Oakland. The name that immediately gets brought up is Don Knauss(clorox for those who don’t know him) anyway…. who has never actually offered to buy the A’s. He hasn’t even offered to have Clorox match the Cisco naming rights deal in San Jose. I’ve even heard Pleasanton suggested as a ballpark site in the A’s current territory. OK. A remotely located small-town-like suburb off of Route 680 is going to be place for a 40,000-seat baseball stadium. Good luck with that.
Berry, I tried to let you know this privately, but since you use a fake email address I have to post it here: I’ve had to delete two of your comments now because they included personal attacks on other commenters. Please abide by the rules from now on — it’s in everyone’s interest to prevent flamewars.
1. Nobody is attacking u neil. U can’t handle facts so when others read ur site and counter every move u say…u get offended. U have to have thickerskin. Instead of attack me be a big boy
Oh, I’m not offended. I simply have a rule for this site that prohibits personal attacks, since I find that without it, discussions quickly degenerate into name-calling and drive away anyone who wants to have an actual discussion.
And for the record, I’ve deleted comments by several people who were agreeing with me under this rule as well.
Sigh….ok neil ill go easy when I bring facts to this site…….ggeezzzz
It’s year 2020. The A’s, Raiders and even the Warriors (environmental legal roadblocks) are still calling the Coliseum home. What odds do you give me?