[bosrs1]

kw11333, on February 16, 2012 - 00:57, said:

Bucfan56, on February 16, 2012 - 00:16, said:

The Niners will be building a stadium in Santa Clara, which in a lot of ways can be considered a suburb of San Jose.

The Warriors have looked into building an arena right next to AT&T Park either just behind McCovey cove or even right on the Embacadero. There are some logistical and financial issues with this, but if they can pull it off it'll be hugely beneficial for them IMO.

The Raiders have supposedly looked into moving back to LA, but frankly, if the A's and Warriors both bail I don't see why they wouldn't at least consider staying. If they could get a new stadium built on their current site they would benefit a lot IMO. It would basically make the San Francisco area home to the Giants, Warriors, and the Raiders just across the bay, and would leave the San Jose region with the A's, 49ers, and Sharks. That, IMO, would be a great balance for the Bay Area.

The Raiders are probably the team, LA most wants too(Rams being number 2). Oakland is literally getting to the point where they might lose ALL their pro sports teams. Their politicians need to do something, really quick. That is a lot of business for a city to lose.

One, Oakland's politicians are incapable of doing anything. They're inept from the top down when dealing with everything, not just the sports teams. And second, it's really not that much business to lose. The A's, Raiders and Warriors actually cost the city money. They don't make them anything.

[Sabrejeff]

Buc, on February 15, 2012 - 22:56, said:

San Jose A's...so redundantly redundant.

This whole reboot will fail if they don't reboot as the San JosA's.

Exactly what I was thinking. It would be perfect for their initial marketing campaign after the move. Something like "We're San JosA's Team" or something similar.

[zpqmaowl]

I would really like them go officially go by San José instead of San Jose, because, well, that's the city's name.

[bosrs1]

zpqmaowl, on February 16, 2012 - 15:54, said:

I would really like them go officially go by San José instead of San Jose, because, well, that's the city's name.

Common misconception. Both San Jose and San José are officially correct. City hall utilizes one, but the city charter, and many cities agencies use the other sans é.

[jrodsep]

California A's?

[kw11333]

jrodsep, on February 16, 2012 - 19:11, said:

California A's?

California has more major league teams, than any other state. But sadly this is the best idea so far.

Drop the "A's" nickname, and only go by "Athletics". Put an SJ on your hat. San Jose A's, is one of the worst sounding team names, I have ever heard.

[bosrs1]

kw11333, on February 16, 2012 - 19:39, said:

jrodsep, on February 16, 2012 - 19:11, said:

California A's?

California has more major league teams, than any other state. But sadly this is the best idea so far.

Drop the "A's" nickname, and only go by "Athletics". Put an SJ on your hat. San Jose A's, is one of the worst sounding team names, I have ever heard.

Might as well get used to it. There is no debate, or question, or chance, it'll be anything but San Jose Athletics (A's). It's a contractual requirement of their deal to move to San Jose. No name change, no city land for stadium, no move.

San Jose Athletics... it's the future!

[Quillz]

I still maintain that people who think "San Jose A's" sounds bad is simply the result of it not being commonplace yet. I'm sure people in Brooklyn didn't much like the sound of "Los Angeles Dodgers" in 1957. What about when the New York Highlanders became the Yankees? Must have sounded strange for a bit.

San Jose seems to be a fine market for baseball and I really do hope they are able to get the franchise.

[DaytonBlue]

No California A's. San Jose Athletics is fine. I feel like most of their Oakland fans will still follow the team, even if they do not attend as often due to the drive.

I hope MLB tells the Giants to shove it. The teams in the other two-market metro areas co-exist just fine. As quoted in an ESPN article last summer,

"The Bay Area, for example, is the smallest of the four two-team markets in baseball and yet is the only one of the four that divides territorial rights specifically by county. In the other three markets -- Los Angeles, Chicago and New York -- both teams share each county of the market, allowing for the Yankees or Mets to move to Manhattan, if either team chose to."

Source:

And besides, what are they going to do with the team if they can't go to San Jose?
Portland? Charlotte? doubtful
Contraction with the Rays? can't see the PA ever allowing that
(In fact, on a side note, if they ever want to really get rid of the DH, I think they will have to actually EXPAND by 2 teams to make that happen to offset the loss of DH jobs...unlikely, but maybe possible in 10 years or so when some fringe MLB cities grow bigger.)

[Bouj]

DaytonBlue, on February 16, 2012 - 23:21, said:

No California A's. San Jose Athletics is fine. I feel like most of their Oakland fans will still follow the team, even if they do not attend as often due to the drive.

I hope MLB tells the Giants to shove it. The teams in the other two-market metro areas co-exist just fine. As quoted in an ESPN article last summer,

"The Bay Area, for example, is the smallest of the four two-team markets in baseball and yet is the only one of the four that divides territorial rights specifically by county. In the other three markets -- Los Angeles, Chicago and New York -- both teams share each county of the market, allowing for the Yankees or Mets to move to Manhattan, if either team chose to."

Source:

And besides, what are they going to do with the team if they can't go to San Jose?
Portland? Charlotte? doubtful
Contraction with the Rays? can't see the PA ever allowing that
(In fact, on a side note, if they ever want to really get rid of the DH, I think they will have to actually EXPAND by 2 teams to make that happen to offset the loss of DH jobs...unlikely, but maybe possible in 10 years or so when some fringe MLB cities grow bigger.)

They will never get rid of the DH. The purists faction who want it gone isn't large enough and I think the players association would actually be willing to go to war over it. Plus, the DH has become ingrained at all levels of the game outside of the NL.

There is zero reason for them not to be the San Jose Athletics. If they are successful on the field, there fans in the area that aren't hardcore Giants fans will come on board. No need to have some half-assed attempt to artificially appeal to a broader base. The Angels didn't steal Dodger fans, the Dodgers got crappy and the Angels picked up non-hardcore loyalists.

[Bravo96]

Wait....
Charlotte....?

[JStamper]

I am not from California but why is a move 30 miles down the road a big deal that would make Oakland fans stop rooting for their team? I live in Boston and fans travel down from Maine, NH, and Vermont all the time. The patriots moved almost that far from Boston to foxboro and they are still Boston's team.

If San Jose antes up the money to allow them to build a new ballpark and become competitive again, they should be given the honor of having their name on the Jersey. It sounds like everyone wins (except maybe taxpayers), but I would think any A's fan would be thrilled. Stay put in that dump of a park and suck every year or move 30 miles down the road and play in a beautiful park that allows you to compete? Seems like a no brainer.

[BLUELANDbeliever]

It looks incredibly fake.

[EddieJ1984]

JStamper, on February 17, 2012 - 09:04, said:

Stay put in that dump of a park and suck every year or move 30 miles down the road and play in a beautiful park that allows you to compete? Seems like a no brainer.

Because a ballpark is the factor is whether a team will suck that year or not

[larrypep]

Nothing wrong with "San Jose A's" / "San Jose Athletics". As pointed out, it's the historical factor of Oakland that makes it sound weird, but people will get used to San Jose. And I'm just thankful that they can pretty much port their awesome, unique identity over with minimal impact.

[BringBackTheVet]

EddieJ1984, on February 17, 2012 - 09:40, said:

JStamper, on February 17, 2012 - 09:04, said:

Stay put in that dump of a park and suck every year or move 30 miles down the road and play in a beautiful park that allows you to compete? Seems like a no brainer.

Because a ballpark is the factor is whether a team will suck that year or not

Well not to be an ass, but in many cases, yes - it is. Just look at the Phillies. The new park opened up a whole new slew of revenue sources that has allowed them to keep their good players and buy new ones every year. I don't know what the A's deal is with the Oakland Coliseum, but they may not get parking money, consession money, etc. Part of getting them to move was probably a sweetheart deal with the new park that will allow them to generate way more money than before and (if the owner actually uses it) compete with the other high-spending clubs.

So yeah - the ballpark can be a huge factor.

[NJTank]

Maybe they could be the Oakland A's of San Jose

[the admiral]

NOW WHAT IN GOD'S NAME KNOWING ALL THAT YOU KNOW MADE YOU THINK THAT WAS ANYTHING IN THE SAME UNIVERSE AS ANYTHING THAT REMOTELY RESEMBLES A GOOD IDEA

Just keep the name. Oakland is a sensibility, a state of mind, a synecdoche, an abstraction of our ever-simmering desires to counterintuitively be less than what we are. Who cares if they're not there? After all, there's no there there, anyway! I don't want my brain to classify the A's as a distinctly San Jose entity, for fear that I'll be reminded of the giddy-ass weirdos who write fan fiction about the Sharks on HFboards or whatever it is they do.

[guest23]

BringBackTheVet, on February 17, 2012 - 10:27, said:

EddieJ1984, on February 17, 2012 - 09:40, said:

JStamper, on February 17, 2012 - 09:04, said:

Stay put in that dump of a park and suck every year or move 30 miles down the road and play in a beautiful park that allows you to compete? Seems like a no brainer.

Because a ballpark is the factor is whether a team will suck that year or not

Well not to be an ass, but in many cases, yes - it is. Just look at the Phillies. The new park opened up a whole new slew of revenue sources that has allowed them to keep their good players and buy new ones every year. I don't know what the A's deal is with the Oakland Coliseum, but they may not get parking money, consession money, etc. Part of getting them to move was probably a sweetheart deal with the new park that will allow them to generate way more money than before and (if the owner actually uses it) compete with the other high-spending clubs.

So yeah - the ballpark can be a huge factor.

the raiders and the changing economics of the game over the last 20 years doomed the a's...they were actually the preferred team to go watch in the late 80's and into the 90's but the monstrosity that al davis had the city build in the outfield killed the stadium's atmosphere...the new giants stadium was also a huge factor as all of the casual fans in the south bay switched over due to the superior game day experience...then you have the ever declining local economy in oakland especially around the stadium and you've pretty much alienated any casual fan...finally the macro driver that killed most of the small markets were the local tv networks that the a's and red sox started...when you have the big markets bringing in 10x the revenue of an oakland or kc you've pretty much destroyed the competitive balance.

[bosrs1]

NJTank, on February 17, 2012 - 10:41, said:

Maybe they could be the Oakland A's of San Jose

Not possible contractually for the fifth time. It is San Jose A's or no move. San Jose is not going to play second billing to a shrinking city 1/4 its size.