Jump to content

MLB: The Defunct Saga - Bibliography Added


SFGiants58

Recommended Posts

Where else are they talking about? Charlotte?

 

In all honesty, if they do move, they'd better keep the name. It's stuck with them for three cities now and there's tremendous brand equity. There's no compelling reason to change it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BigRed75 said:

Where else are they talking about? Charlotte?

 

In all honesty, if they do move, they'd better keep the name. It's stuck with them for three cities now and there's tremendous brand equity. There's no compelling reason to change it


Plus, the name “Athletics” would literally fit anywhere.

  • Like 1

Pyc5qRH.gifRDXvxFE.gif

usu-scarf_8549002219_o.png.b2c64cedbb44307eaace2cf7f96dd6b1.png

AKA @LanRovr0 on Twitter

LED Sig Credits to packerfan21396

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 3 months later...

Hey guys, I'll finally be updating the thread later today. It’s something I’ve put off for a long time, due to little things like “completing my master’s degree” and “working on other projects.” But I'm finally updating it again! My goal is to be done before the end of the year.

 

See you within the hour.

  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, we’ve finally arrived at the most controversial and complicated attempted relocation.

 

SAN JOSÉ ATHLETICS – Territory Tango

 

Our story begins in 1958, when the Giants moved to San Francisco. Stoneham and the front office failed to properly claim the entirety of the Bay Area as the Giants’ territory. This allowed the Athletics to move into Oakland without financially compensating the Giants (as the Angels had to do for the Dodgers).1 This left the territory situation in the Bay Area nebulous, perhaps a shared relationship like the Cubs-White Sox, Mets-Yankees, and Dodgers-Angels. No periodical sources indicate what the situation was like up until the year 1990. The initial complaint from City of San Jose et al v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball et al does state that the Giants only had claims to San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, but does not elaborate on the status of the other Bay Area counties before 1990.2

 

What happened in 1990? Well, if one remembers the San José Giants entry, the Athletics’ owner Walter Haas gave the Giants permission to explore Santa Clara County/San José for the location of a new stadium. Of course, those referendums failed in 1990 and 1992, the Tampa Bay drama occurred, and the Giants had new ownership committed to remaining in San Francisco. However, the rights did not revert back to the A’s and no sharing agreement ensured.

 

The time between the failure of the San José stadium and the Magowan group buying the Giants was only four months (June-October 1992). Said four months were particularly busy for MLB, what with the purchase of the Mariners by Nintendo in July and Commissioner Fay Vincent resigning in September.3 The issue of the territory rights was not even a consideration, given the much larger issues of ownership changeovers, the loss of a commissioner, and a potential relocation. Therefore, the San José territory rights became part of the deal. Also, there was still the possibility of San José being the future home for the Giants, for a few years, should the team be unable to construct a stadium in San Francisco.

 

The March 1996 referendum provided the Giants with a near-downtown park in San Francisco, but the territory rights remained with the Giants. They were part of the purchase, therefore the Giants brass felt entitled to control Santa Clara County. Indeed, 17.5 percent of the Giants’ fans lived in Santa Clara County (compared to the 10.8 percent of A’s fans living in the region) in 1997.4 It wouldn’t make sense to give up a claim to the region.

 

The mid-late ‘90s were also when the Athletics began their new (and ongoing) stadium search. The ruination of the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum at the hands of Al Davis, along with Haas’ estate selling the team to the Steve Schott/Ken Hoffman partnership in March 1995, made a new venue seem attractive. The A’s had lost money every year of Haas ownership (about $15 million at best, $50 million in 2021 money), in spite of on-field successes and Haas’ willingness to pay for top talent. Schott and Hoffman brought back the days of penny-pinching (a time-honored Athletics tradition), arguably seeing the team as a real estate venture more than anything else. Schott lived in the East Bay and had numerous investments there, so it would make sense to look to the South Bay for moving the team.5 However, MLB politics stymied talks, as the Giants owned the rights to the region and would require extensive negotiation and/or payouts. Also, the two failed referendums loomed heavy over any prospective stadium deals.

 

spacer.png SanJose5.jpg

 

(The 2002 San José stadium proposal)6

 

Throughout the rest of their tenure as owners, Schott and Hoffman courted San José and tried to work deals out with local politicians. The San José Sports Authority started talks with the team between 1995-97, after Team President Ed Alvarez began official searches for a new venue. These plans would have involved a location around “Spartan Stadium, or on part of the 170-acre Santa Clara County Fairgrounds land, or in the city of Santa Clara, where some baseball boosters have been trying to find investors to build a park for the A's.”7 This speculation would gain support when Ron Gonzalez, a friend of Schott’s, won the 1998 San José mayoral election. In this windfall, the Santa Clara Stadium Association emerged to study the possibility of bringing the Athletics to Santa Clara County. Despite a brief hiccup with a potential sale of the A’s in 1999, the team remained with Schott/Hoffman at the helm and continued informal talks with San José.8 Talks for a San José park would intensify in March 2001, when Schott declared that ''Our future does not lie in Oakland.'' This was in spite of a breakdown between Schott and Mayor Gonzalez, with the latter maintaining that no public funds would be available for Schott.9 These desires coalesced into a $274.5 million venue next to Great America theme park in Santa Clara (where the Giants considered building in 1990), with $149.5 million coming from the public (the Athletics would repay it). This plan ultimately went nowhere, as the Santa Clara City Council stalled out over funding concerns, contraction talks, and a weakened economy in August 2001. There was also the matter of a rumored sale of the A’s to Mandalay Sports Group, a group that would move the team to Las Vegas (foreshadowing).10 Talks would not resume in earnest until 2004.

 

In 2004, Baseball San José formed and set about trying to gain the Athletics interest with public rallies. Meanwhile, the Sports Facility Task Force (part of the San José Sports Authority) began studying ballpark options. These efforts would continue into 2005, with the sale of the A’s to Lew Wolff and John Fisher. However, Wolff frequently went back-and-forth between committing to Oakland (and the Coliseum site) and considering a move to the South Bay.11

 

After stalling out in San José, the Athletics went back to the drawing board and selected Fremont as the new location. Fremont was close to San José while being within Alameda County, one of only two counties controlled by the A’s in MLB’s constitution. This new project will be its separate post, as it involves its own issues and a truly stupid suggestion for a location name.

 

Cisco-082410-1000-4.jpg Cisco-082410-1000-5.jpgCisco-11-1.jpg


(The later San José stadium proposal)12

 

The scuttling of Fremont in 2009/10 led Wolff and Fisher back to San José. MLB initiated the Blue Ribbon Committee to consider the territory rights issue in 2009, reporting their findings to Commissioner Bud Selig. That effort went absolutely nowhere, with the Giants still holding onto Santa Clara County. The Athletics and San José sought to build the stadium on site adjacent to Diridon Station, with the A’s purchasing land there at a discount (known as a land option). This land option would become a significant point of contention between the Athletics/San José, the Giants/MLB, and the state/federal court system.13

 

In 2011, a series of lawsuits began between the city of San José and Stand for San José (an astroturfing operation funded by the Giants to protect their territory rights). Stand for San José initiated a suit against San José for selling the Diridon land to the Athletics in 2011, a suit that would go through multiple phases and consolidations between 2011 and 2013. The Stand for San José group launched an additional suit in 2014, again focusing around the land option. The 2011/13 case ended in an abandonment after a period of inactivity in 2017, while the Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara dismissed the 2014 suit in 2018 (at the request of Stand for San José).14 This attempted sabotage, with its clear backers, would help to galvanize the City of San José to take MLB to court.

 

The federal case City of San Jose et al v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball et al began in June 2013, with the city filing antitrust actions against MLB for keeping the Athletics from moving to San José. A large portion of San José’s argument was that antitrust exemptions should not apply to the relocation of franchises. MLB argued successfully that 1972’s Flood v. Kuhn protected the antitrust exemption when it came to franchise relocation and that the Curt Flood Act of 1998 only repealed the player salary sections of the exemption. The Northern District Court of California and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of MLB, while the United States Supreme Court squashed San José’s certiorari petition in October 2015.15 However, this would not be the truly crushing legal decision against the San José A’s.

 

The ultimate blow for the Athletics move to San José came in May 2015. It was in the form of a decision by Santa Clara Judge Joseph Huber, one that ruled the land option illegal. Since there had been no referendum for the sale of the land, the land option could not persist between the Athletics and the City of San José. This particular defeat, on top of the continued court failures, led Wolff and Fisher to abandon San José as the future home of the A’s. San José itself rebounded well from this failure, eventually allowing Google to build a new campus in and around the Diridon site originally earmarked for the ballpark.16

 

A TL;DR for the past 2600 or so words – a little video:

 

As a Giants fan, I am not exactly the best person to be talking about this issue. My research has enlightened me somewhat to the complexities of the territory rights issue, so I will try to avoid giving the Giants too much leeway in their actions. The Giants aggravated the issue considerably with the Stand for San José astroturfing operation (which just wasted court time and resources) and refusing to negotiate a split of the Bay Area for free, trying to push the Athletics out of the Bay Area market in a manner unlike any of the other two-team markets (except for maybe the Baltimore-DC issues with MASN and Peter Angelos resisting a DC team for so long). The Giants also did not surrender the exclusive rights to Santa Clara County, even after they made it clear that a Santa Clara stadium was not in their future. While the A’s claimed that the rights were conditional (claiming that minutes made it clear that the rights were conditional), the Giants have made the opposite case (unconditional rights).17 The media gesturing, alongside the astroturfing and continued enforcement of territory rights (likely with the ulterior motive of pushing the Athletics out of the Bay Area) paint the Giants in a very negative light.

 

However, one has to consider the Giants’ perspective, one in which the Athletics are moving into one of their crucial territories. Remember that the Giants had a larger percentage of pre-existing fans in Santa Clara County than the A’s did in 1997 (a number that has likely grown). Similarly, the Giants also cited that the growing territory of Silicon Valley was essential to their strategic planning when building Willy Mays Park with private money. Placing the stadium so close to the CalTrain depot also had the effect of creating an easy method for fans in Santa Clara County to take public transit to the venue (likewise with Interstate 280). Additionally, the Giants’ ownership group (a bit of a Theseus’ ship since 1992-93) bought the team with those rights included, therefore entitling the team to hang onto the territory.18 Just giving up a crucial territory for marketing and gate revenue without compensation would sound ridiculous to anybody. This isn’t 1990, when Silicon Valley was much smaller and less important to the business strategies of the Giants and A’s. Haas giving away the territory (well, permission to explore Santa Clara County) to the Giants seems short-sighted in hindsight. While the Giants have done much to destroy the San José relocation efforts and the Athletics position in the Bay Area, one must understand how Santa Clara County plays into the Giants’ business model and how financially important it is to them. They are not entirely to blame or worthy of all the ire, but are rather a part of a much larger problem.

 

The Athletics are not entirely innocent in the San José debacle. The team seemed unwilling to even entertain the thought of giving the Giants financial compensation for the vital Santa Clara County territory. While some would argue that the Giants should return Haas’ good faith endeavor and give the A’s free use of the territory, one must understand that such a deal would be a financial blunder on the part of the Giants. Sharing the county or giving exclusive rights to it to the Athletics would theoretically put strain on the Giants’ gate, merchandise, and media revenues. Fair compensation should have been expected, given the current value of the county compared to said county in 1990. Fisher, whose net worth is around $2.9 billion, certainly wouldn’t be in a bad position to entertain the Giants’ demands for compensation. Heck, one of the reasons why the A’s were able to move to Oakland was that Stoneham didn’t secure rights in all Bay Area counties, allowing the Athletics to move into the East Bay without giving the Giants compensation (like the Angels did to the Dodgers).19

 

There were also opportunities for the A’s to clarify the situation regarding territory rights in the ‘90s. While Haas would have voted against any effort for the Giants to move to Tampa Bay, he did not interject during the sale negotiations to inquire about the Santa Clara County territory. Similarly, the MLB Constitution renewals did not feature any objections from the Athletics about the territory discrepancy between the two Bay Area clubs. Such issues could have been cleared up earlier with an ownership dispute among the owners. However, the Athletics did not make a stink of it before the first San José considerations, creating the impasse that came back to bite them.20

 

Also, Haas’ “good faith” granting of Santa Clara to the Giants may not have been a pure and selfless gesture. It may be cynical to suggest this, but one could argue that Haas saw the value in the Giants moving about 40 miles away from downtown San Francisco. With the Giants playing in Santa Clara County, the Athletics would be a more attractive option to people living in San Francisco proper (and northern San Mateo County/Marin County). Haas even said in 1990, “I don't think it will make much difference if the Giants move to Santa Clara, but if they move out of the area, it probably will. It's hard to measure. I thought last season that we probably helped each other because of the excitement of the Bay Series.” - in reference to the potential of the Giants moving.21 While it is a bit of a non-statement (and one can interpret “area” differently, be it the Bay Area or just San Francisco), it does show that a potential shift in the market’s dynamics was on Haas’ mind. It would make sense that letting a competitor leave a lucrative area would be beneficial to the A’s. While his good will for the Bay Area prevented him from voting yes on Tampa Bay relocation, one doubts he was above trying to maneuver his team to be the top dog in the Bay Area. Maybe having greater access to downtown San Francisco would’ve kept the team from losing around $15 million per year?22 Either way, the “good faith” granting of the Santa Clara rights was not entirely pure and the short-sighted allowance backfired horribly for the team.

 

MLB also shares a great deal of blame. Selig should not have played favorites on the Blue Ribbon Committee, negotiating a split of the market between the Giants and Athletics akin to the Dodgers/Angels, Cubs/White Sox, and Yankees/Mets. Such a split would likely set a positive precedent for two-team markets, in which teams could move about wherever they need to in a market without objection from their partner club (e.g., if the Mets moved to Long Island or the Angels moved to Long Beach). Besides, San José’s larger population and business community should have been more attractive to MLB than the declining Oakland. It would make sense for the league to want a split to happen, but they stood by as the Giants pressured the A’s away from Santa Clara County.23

 

Ideally, the Giants and Athletics would have come to an agreement about sharing the Bay Area during the sale of the Giants to the Magowan-led group. With the aid of the other owners and NL President Bill White (the de-facto commissioner after Vincent’s resignation), both teams would establish their claims to all of the Bay Area counties. While there may be some limitations (e.g., no team stores in the other team’s county), each franchise would have the right to relocate within the market. Therefore, the A’s could have moved to Santa Clara County/San José proper without serious objection from the Giants.

 

Another ideal situation would have been for the A’s to financially compensate the Giants for those rights (provided the Giants clearly outlined the financial impact of a rival team in San José). This would have either happened in the early-00s during the Schott/Hoffman ownership or as a result of the Blue Ribbon Committee’s findings. Had MLB been more forceful in handling the issue, the Athletics could have made a San José stadium work. Sadly, neither the Giants nor MLB were willing to budge on the territory rights issue and the Athletics didn’t perform their due diligence in trying to gain the rights back. Every party (save for the City of San José and Santa Clara County) is responsible for the current mess.

 

TL;DR: there’s plenty of blame to go around for the territory rights situation, with the Giants, Athletics, and MLB bearing all of it.

 

Here is a folder containing the court documents of both the S4SJ v. City of San José and City of San José v. MLB suits.

 

So, concepts, right?

 

The concept itself is a fairly basic A’s concept from me. The forest green and use of the “Athletics” script stick with the Wolff-Fisher vision of the brand, which sadly rejects so many good portions of A’s history. The elephant’s ball is now a roundel with a microchip that displays an Old English “SJ.”

 

SJAthletics-Logo-Sheet-A1.png

 

The home and road set is pretty basic, with simple striping and contrast-colored front numbers. Once again, I opted for the accent on the script (partial inspiration from NDWas) because I prefer to write San José with the diacritic.

 

SJAthletics-Homeand-Road.png

 

Colored shirts use the “A’s” logo, with the green one eschewing outlines.

 

SJAthletics-Alts1-A.png

 

The secondary alternates include an “SJ”-heavy white set and a ‘70s throwback (to get some kelly green in the set).

 

SJAthletics-Alts2-A.png

 

Jackets have white sleeves and the city wordmark, with an accompanying retro design.

 

SJAthletics-Jacket1.png SJAthletics-Jacket2.png

 

The San José Athletics wouldn’t need to do much to fit their new location. Up next, the Fremont investigation!

 

1 BoyWithApple, “Everyone Knows the Angels’ Origin Story, Right?,” Crashing the Pearly Gates, June 17, 2020, http://crashingthepearlygates.com/2020/06/17/everyone-knows-the-angels-origin-story-right/; Glenn Dickey, “A’s in San Jose? No Way,” San Francisco Chronicle, August 15, 1997, sec. Sports, Access World News; Ross Newhan, “It Was Almost the City of No Angels,” Los Angeles Times, October 15, 2009, https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-oct-15-sp-dodgers-angels15-story.html; YankeeBiscuitFan, “How the Angels Were Ripped off by Walter O’Malley,” Dutch Baseball Hangout (blog), December 6, 2020, https://dutchbaseballhangout.blog/2020/12/06/how-the-angels-were-ripped-off-by-walter-omalley/.

 

2 City of San Jose et al v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball et al, No. 5:13−cv−02787−RMW (U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Jose) 2014).

 

3 Murray Chass, “Baseball’s Vincent Resigns His Job As Commissioner He Averts a Legal Battle `in Best Interests’ of Game and Takes a Swipe at Some Owners,” San Francisco Chronicle, September 8, 1992, sec. News, Access World News; Max McKay, “Territorial Rights - A (Not So) Brief History,” Athletics Nation, April 18, 2012, https://www.athleticsnation.com/2012/4/18/2958535/territorial-rights-a-not-so-brief-history.

 

4 Edward Epstein, “S.F. VOTERS SAY PLAY BALL - China Basin Stadium Plan Is a Winner,” San Francisco Chronicle, March 27, 1996, sec. News, Access World News; Steve Kettmann, “San Jose Makes a Play For the A’s City Approaches Team, but Obstacles Are Many,” San Francisco Chronicle, August 14, 1997, Access World News.

 

5 Bruce Adams and Dwight Chapin, “Haas Family Concludes Sale of A’s to Developers,” San Francisco Chronicle, July 22, 1995, sec. Sports, https://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/Haas-family-concludes-sale-of-A-s-to-developers-3139978.php; Howard Bryant, “Big League Limbo as Attendance Dwindles, Questions Arise about How -- and Where -- A’s Can Rebound,” San Jose Mercury News (CA), May 10, 1998, sec. Sports, Access World News; Alex Coffey, “Who Is John Fisher? Inside the World of the Reclusive A’s Owner.,” SFGATE, July 15, 2021, https://www.sfgate.com/athletics/article/Who-is-John-Fisher-Inside-the-world-and-16315323.php; Robert Kuwada, “A’s Schott Gets Busy Sparse Crowds Prompt Co-Owner to Boost Role,” San Jose Mercury News (CA), May 20, 1996, sec. Sports, Access World News; David Pollak, “Sports Facility Study under Way in S.J.,” San Jose Mercury News (CA), February 9, 2004, sec. Local, Access World News.

 

6 Eric Okurowski, “StadiumPage.Com - 2002 San Jose Concept,” 2012, http://www.stadiumpage.com/concepts/SanJose02_R.html.

 

7 Steve Kettmann, “Developer: San Jose Is `Big-League’ Option for A’s,” San Francisco Chronicle, March 20, 1998, sec. Sports, Access World News.

 

8 The Insider is compiled by Mercury News reporters., “A Split Decision in Political Ring,” San Jose Mercury News (CA), March 15, 1998, sec. Perspective, Access World News; Laura Kurtzman, “Citizens Renew Push for Ballpark Group: Association of Fans Is Dedicated to Bringing Oakland A’s to Santa Clara.,” San Jose Mercury News (CA), June 20, 2000, sec. Local, Access World News; T.R. Sullivan, “New Owners Won’t Likely Help A’s Much,” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, May 7, 1999, sec. Sports, Access World News.

 

9 Elise Banducci, “Santa Clara Leaves Door Open for A’s to Relocate,” San Jose Mercury News (CA), March 21, 2001, sec. Local, Access World News; Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross, “A’s and South Bay Dream of Fields, But Giants in the Way,” San Francisco Chronicle, June 26, 2000, sec. News, Access World News; Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross, “Lots of Noise at Coliseum But None of It About A’s Moving,” San Francisco Chronicle, September 27, 2000, sec. News, Access World News.

 

10 Banducci, “Santa Clara Leaves Door Open for A’s to Relocate”; Elise Banducci and Barry Witt, “Proposal for New A’s Ballpark Blasted Santa Clara Exec: Costs ‘Unrealistic,’” San Jose Mercury News (CA), July 21, 2001, sec. Front, Access World News; Elise Banducci and Barry Witt, “Santa Clara Council Halts Talks with A’s Some Members Put off by News Reports of Possible Sale the Surprise Move Came as Three Changed Their Vote to Negotiate Building a New Park for the Oakland Baseball Team.,” San Jose Mercury News (CA), August 23, 2001, Access World News; Elise Banducci and Barry Witt, “A’s Stadium Talks Put on Back Burner - League Labor Rift, Slowing Economy Take Precedence A’s Management Delayed until after Thanksgiving a Session Set Tonight with the Santa Clara Council.,” San Jose Mercury News (CA), October 23, 2001, sec. Local, Access World News; Mark Purdy, “Santa Clara Has a Solid Stadium Plan -- but Will Baseball’s Leaders Listen?,” San Jose Mercury News (CA), May 9, 2001, sec. Sports, Access World News.

 

11 Baseball Oakland, “Timeline,” Baseball Oakland (blog), June 7, 2013, https://baseballoakland.wordpress.com/timeline/; Coffey, “Who Is John Fisher?”; Neil deMause, “Wolff to Fans: Sorry, East Bay Stadiums Didn’t Work out,” Field of Schemes, July 16, 2010, https://www.fieldofschemes.com/2010/07/16/2714/wolff-to-fans-sorry-east-bay-stadiums-didnt-work-out/; Rhamesis Muncada, “Timeline,” Newballpark.Org (blog), December 6, 2014, https://newballpark.org/timeline/.

 

12 Eric Okurowski, “StadiumPage.Com - Cisco Field San Jose Concept,” 2019, http://www.stadiumpage.com/concepts/CiscoSJ_R.html.

 

13 Rhamesis Muncada, “A’s to Get Huge Discount on SJ Ballpark Land,” Newballpark.Org (blog), October 27, 2011, https://newballpark.org/2011/10/26/as-to-get-huge-discount-on-sj-ballpark-land/; McKay, “Territorial Rights - A (Not So) Brief History.”

 

14 Rhamesis Muncada, “Stand for San Jose Sues City of San Jose,” Newballpark.Org (blog), December 3, 2011, https://newballpark.org/2011/12/03/stand-for-san-jose-sues-city-of-san-jose/; Rhamesis Muncada, “Hearing to Compel Deposition (S4SJ Lawsuit),” Newballpark.Org (blog), September 28, 2012, https://newballpark.org/2012/09/28/hearing-to-compel-deposition-s4sj-lawsuit/; Rhamesis Muncada, “San Jose Files Motion to Disqualify in S4SJ Lawsuit,” Newballpark.Org (blog), March 22, 2013, https://newballpark.org/2013/03/22/san-jose-files-motion-to-disqualify-in-s4sj-lawsuit/; Rhamesis Muncada, “Stand For San Jose Lawsuit Returns,” Newballpark.Org (blog), December 9, 2014, https://newballpark.org/2014/12/09/stand-for-san-jose-lawsuit-returns/; Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, “2011-1-CV-214196 Stand For San Jose, Et Al Vs City Of San Jose, Et Al,” Public Portal: Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, accessed September 23, 2021, https://portal.scscourt.org/case/NDAzMzA2; Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, “2013-1-CV-250372 Stand For San Jose, et al vs City Of San Jose, et Al,” Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, accessed September 23, 2021, https://portal.scscourt.org/case/NDY4MDA2; Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, “2014-1-CV-274088 Stand For San Jose, et al vs City Of San Jose, et Al,” Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, accessed September 23, 2021, https://portal.scscourt.org/case/NTAzNzAz.

 

15 City of San Jose et al v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball et al (n.d.); Law360, “San Jose Strikes Out In MLB Antitrust Immunity Challenge,” Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, October 6, 2015, 360, https://www.keker.com/news/news-items/san-jose-strikes-out-in-mlb-antitrust-immunity-challenge; Rhamesis Muncada, “San Jose’s Antitrust Case Denied by SCOTUS,” Newballpark.Org (blog), October 1, 2015, https://newballpark.org/2015/10/01/san-joses-antitrust-case-denied-by-scotus/; Lester Munson, “Munson: The Potential in San Jose’s Strong Suit,” ESPN.com, June 19, 2013, https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/9403225/the-san-jose-legal-case-oakland-strong.

 

16 Rhamesis Muncada, “SC County Judge Declares A’s-San Jose Land Option Illegal,” Newballpark.Org (blog), May 6, 2015, https://newballpark.org/2015/05/05/sc-county-judge-declares-as-san-jose-land-option-illegal/; Rhamesis Muncada, “Getting to Yes,” Newballpark.Org (blog), June 17, 2021, https://newballpark.org/2021/06/17/getting-to-yes/; Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross, “Judge Says San Jose’s Deal with A’s Broke Law,” San Francisco Chronicle, May 5, 2015, sec. Matier and Ross, https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Judge-says-San-Jose-s-deal-with-A-s-broke-law-6244355.php.

 

17 City of San Jose et al v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball et al, U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Jose) 2014; Rhamesis Muncada, “A’s Release Statement on Territorial Rights,” Newballpark.Org (blog), March 7, 2012, https://newballpark.org/2012/03/07/as-release-statement-on-territorial-rights/; Rhamesis Muncada, “Giants Revisionist History,” Newballpark.Org (blog), March 8, 2012, https://newballpark.org/2012/03/08/giants-revisionist-history/.

 

18 Banducci, “Santa Clara Leaves Door Open for A’s to Relocate”; Dickey, “A’s in San Jose?”; Kettmann, “San Jose Makes a Play For the A’s City Approaches Team, but Obstacles Are Many”; McKay, “Territorial Rights - A (Not So) Brief History.”

 

19 Dickey, “A’s in San Jose?”; Forbes, “John Fisher,” Forbes, accessed September 24, 2021, https://www.forbes.com/profile/john-fisher/.

 

20 City of San Jose et al v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball et al, U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Jose) 2014; Muncada, “A’s Release Statement on Territorial Rights.”

 

21 Glenn Dickey, “What the A’s Are Worth to Oakland,” San Francisco Chronicle, March 2, 1990, sec. Sports, Access World News.

 

22 Coffey, “Who Is John Fisher?”; Dickey, “What the A’s Are Worth to Oakland”; LF94, “Key Off-Field Moments In Oakland A’s History: #2,” Athletics Nation, January 23, 2014, https://www.athleticsnation.com/2014/1/23/5335784/key-off-field-moments-in-oakland-as-history-haas-gives-up-santa-clara.

 

23 Biggest US Cities, “San Jose, California Population History | 1960 - 2019,” accessed September 24, 2021, https://www.biggestuscities.com/city/san-jose-california.

 

Edited by SFGiants58
Spacing and placket tweaks
  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • SFGiants58 changed the title to MLB: The Defunct Saga - San José Athletics Added

I really like this, even if I don't like the idea of the A's leaving Oakland. The accent on the e in San Jose is always a nice touch. The city government actually insists upon it, if I remember correctly.

 

Spoiler

Oakland Athletics at Fremont

wasn't as dumb as you made it out to be. It was dumber.

  • Like 2

♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Always love seeing these detailed posts about franchises and relocations and seeing what they could have been, SF. It's like peering into alternate universes in some small form.

 

And the A's staying in the Bay Area at all would probably be preferable to most A's fans than going to Vegas, so I could see the SJ A's maintaining a sturdy Oakland fanbase, like the Raiders with LA.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great work as always. Love the lower case Old English "s" in the secondary logo and the microchip in the primary logo is an inspired touch. So happy this series is back!

 

On a side note, A VIEW TO A KILL is unfortunately the worst James Bond movie, but there are a lot of individual things to love about it!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll admit that I want to spice up the A's after seeing small variations the same green and yellow uniform a bunch of times.  (It's why the Phoenix A's are my favorite Athletics concept in this thread.)

For San Jose, I was thinking of possibly leaning into the "Silicon Valley" style a lot more. Maybe incorporating the grey-blue color of actual raw silicon (I got Hex #9599a5 as an example when searching), or something in the colors of finished microprocessors.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/8/2021 at 9:53 AM, Coiler said:

I'll admit that I want to spice up the A's after seeing small variations the same green and yellow uniform a bunch of times.  (It's why the Phoenix A's are my favorite Athletics concept in this thread.)

For San Jose, I was thinking of possibly leaning into the "Silicon Valley" style a lot more. Maybe incorporating the grey-blue color of actual raw silicon (I got Hex #9599a5 as an example when searching), or something in the colors of finished microprocessors.

 

I totally get that. Heck, the A's concepts have had me bored a bit. While I didn't want to inject grey into the design (as I assumed the franchise would stress continuity within a Bay Area move), I do think you're on to something with a slight color tweak. "Motherboard Green" (which is just kelly) and metallic gold might work.

 

SJAthletics-Homeand-Road-AC.png

 

Of course, yellow-gold looks better to me.

 

SJAthletics-Homeand-Road-AB.png

 

Kelly Green doesn't work as well for San José, but that's just my opinion.

 

On 11/7/2021 at 4:20 PM, coco1997 said:

Great work as always. Love the lower case Old English "s" in the secondary logo and the microchip in the primary logo is an inspired touch. So happy this series is back!

 

On a side note, A VIEW TO A KILL is unfortunately the worst James Bond movie, but there are a lot of individual things to love about it!

 

Thanks! I'm glad you're glad it's back.

 

I'm of two minds about AVTAK. I think it's a terribly derrivative Bond movie that just highlights how ancient Moore was at the time. On the other, it's so weird that I can't help but enjoy it on a morbid level. I'd personally rank Diamonds Are Forever as my least favorite, because Sean Connery's boredom is palpable. That and it looks cheap compared to OHMSS. 

 

On 11/6/2021 at 6:09 PM, the admiral said:

I really like this, even if I don't like the idea of the A's leaving Oakland. The accent on the e in San Jose is always a nice touch. The city government actually insists upon it, if I remember correctly.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Oakland Athletics at Fremont

wasn't as dumb as you made it out to be. It was dumber.

 

Thanks. As for the name, prepare for mega-dumb.

 

SAN JOSÉ ATHLETICS OF FREMONT/SILICON VALLEY ATHLETICS OF FREMONT – Workaround go Womp-Womp

 

Following the sale of the Athletics to the Wolff/Fisher group, they started out with a very reasonable plan - build in Fremont. That particular city is in the southwestern sector of Alameda County. In fact, it is the southernmost city in the county and directly borders Santa Clara County. It would both be close to San José (with Silicon Valley) and not infringe on the Giants territory rights. It would seem to be a foolproof plan.

 

cisco2.jpgcisco3.jpgcisco8.jpgcisco11.jpg

FREMONT-CA-NOVEMBER-14-Lew-Wolff-L-owner

 

(Images of Cisco Field and Lew Wolff with Cisco president and CEO John Chambers)1

 

The plan, entitled Cisco Field, involved real estate development (e.g., housing and retail/lodging spaces) alongside the stadium. It would involve a 143-acre (.058 square kilometers) space next to Interstate 880 and the Pacific Commons shopping center. Cisco, the Bay Area tech company, already owned the land parcel. Cisco, the A’s ownership, and Commissioner Selig gave a press conference on November 14, 2006, announcing this plan on the doorstep of Cisco’s headquarters. They planned for a 2011 opening of the 32,000-seat stadium, along with promising a resolution for traffic concerns. Such worries included no BART line directly to the park and the closest planned one being within two miles of the stadium. Wolff also stated that “of Fremont” would be part of the team’s name, possibly “San José Athletics of Fremont” or “Silicon Valley Athletics of Fremont.” Apparently, the “Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim” wasn’t stupid enough to be a deterrent.2

 

render-home.jpg

 

(Cisco Field’s proximity to big box retailers)3

 

Despite all of the talk and the sign on the future site, problems quickly manifested. By 2008, big box retailers in the Pacific Commons area (e.g., Costco and Lowe’s) objected to potential “parking poaching” and concerns about traffic surges to the ballpark village during gamedays. The Great Recession also put a significant dent in mixed-use real estate development, which Wolff’s planned ballpark village very much was. Despite this, Fremont mayor Bob Wasserman supported the park and saw it as a way to improve Fremont’s image.4

 

Screenshotter-You-Tube-02102009-KTVU2-News-500-Fremont-Residents-Protest-As-Stadium-0-16.jpgScreenshotter-You-Tube-02102009-KTVU2-News-500-Fremont-Residents-Protest-As-Stadium-1-14.jpg

 

(The new site and protestors rallying against the Fremont plans)5

 

 

By December 2008, Wolff and Fisher would set their eyes on the Warm Springs site. This was near the NUMMI/future Tesla plant, east of I-880 and within walking distance of a future BART extension. While it may have been a better location for some traffic, it ran into significant local opposition. On February 5, 2009, hundreds of protesters (many a part of Fremont Citizens Network – not a Giants astroturfing effort) gathered at Fred E. Weibel Elementary School to announce their distaste for the plan. Complaints included traffic bottlenecks, noise increases, and potentially lost property values. Displeasure also came from the Pacific Commons site’s proximity to the Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge. On February 24, the Athletics would officially scrap plans for building a stadium in Fremont at both sites. While Fremont floated a second NUMMI site that was a half-mile west of the first site (and 120 acres/0.48 square kilometers) in early 2010, it failed to attract the attention of the Athletics and MLB.6

 

TL;DR: Spongebob as the people of Fremont and Plankton as Lew Wolff/John Fisher and the leaders of Fremont.

 

Nk2q1D.gif

 

Ultimately, Fremont was the A’s best shot at building a Silicon Valley stadium without having to pay/negotiate with the Giants. However, the chosen sites were particularly rampant with NIMBY (not in my back yard) behavior, whether it be from reasonable people (residential areas don’t need big stadiums) or from corporate interests (big box retailers, soon to feel the impact of the Great Recession and increased online shopping). Making a stadium in Fremont work with public transit (e.g., BART) and the locals would’ve been an optimal course of action for the A’s. Ballot measures and civic negotiation could’ve produced good results, but it would still be a downgrade relative to the San José sites or even Howard Terminal.

 

With this concept, I would assume that the “San José Athletics of Fremont” would look exactly like my San José Athletics concept. Therefore, I’ll be focusing on the “Silicon Valley Athletics of Fremont” and the “Fremont Athletics” sobriquets. “Fremont” doesn’t have as much allure as a name, but it works well for them. It's also less stupid.

 

FREAthletics-Roundels.png

 

Above are my alternate roundels for the San José and Silicon Valley names.

 

The logo and uniform designs are all just slight modifications of my pre-existing San José Athletics concept, so they need minimal explanation. Futura wordmarks do return, as I felt they fit the style.

 

Silicon Valley Athletics of Fremont

 

SVAthletics-Logo-Sheet-A1.png

 

SVAthletics-Homeand-Road.png

 

SVAthletics-Alts1-A.png

 

SVAthletics-Alts2-A.png

 

SVAthletics-Jacket1.png SJAthletics-Jacket2.png

 

Fremont Athletics

EDIT: I have adjusted the "F" to not have the downward-curling bottom serif, per @coco1997's suggestion. Here are the original logo sheet, home and road, alternates 1, alternates 2, and outerwear. I've also included the comparison.

 

FREAthletics-Logo-Sheet-B.png

 

FREAthletics-Homeand-Road-B.png

 

FREAthletics-Alts1-B.png

 

FREAthletics-Alts2-B.png

 

FREAthletics-Jacket-A.png

 SJAthletics-Jacket2.png

 

Up next, a small update to an ancient concept.

 

1 Eric Okurowski, “StadiumPage.Com - Fremont Cisco Field,” 2012, http://www.stadiumpage.com/concepts/athletics_R.html.

 

2 Associated Press, “A’s to Build Fremont Park,” San Mateo Daily Journal, November 9, 2006, https://www.smdailyjournal.com/sports/as-to-build-fremont-park/article_bb1554a0-6538-55e0-9640-7fd1a097f6b9.html; Chris De Benedetti, “A’s Officially Announce Intentions to Move to Fremont,” East Bay Times (blog), November 15, 2006, https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2006/11/15/as-officially-announce-intentions-to-move-to-fremont/; Patrick Hoge and Marisa Lagos, “A’s Announce Plan to Buy Land, Move to Fremont,” San Francisco Chronicle, November 14, 2006, sec. Bay Area; Chris Thompson, “The Fremont Athletics,” East Bay Express | Oakland, Berkeley & Alameda (blog), November 29, 2006, https://eastbayexpress.com/the-fremont-athletics-1/.

 

3 Rhamesis Muncada, “Wolff: I Still Think It’s Going to Happen,” Newballpark.Org (blog), August 1, 2008, https://newballpark.org/2008/08/01/wolff-i-still-think-its-going-to-happen/.

 

4 Peter Fimrite, “Fremont Mayor a Hit with Voters on Ballpark,” San Francisco Chronicle, November 5, 2008, sec. Metro; Muncada, “Wolff.”

 

5 fcnwebtv, 02/10/2009 KTVU2 News - 500+ Fremont Residents Protest A’s Stadium, 2009, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtMLI99mDS0.

 

6 Matthew Artz, “Fremont Deals Again for the A’s,” The Mercury News (blog), January 8, 2010, https://www.mercurynews.com/2010/01/08/fremont-deals-again-for-the-as/; Associated Press, “A’s Scrap Plans to Build New Stadium in Fremont,” ESPN.com, February 24, 2009, https://www.espn.com/mlb/news/story?id=3931425; Wes Bowers, “Hundreds Mob Weibel to Protest Fremont Stadium,” Fremont Bulletin, February 12, 2009, sec. Local, Access World News, https://infoweb.newsbank.com/apps/news/document-view?p=AWNB&docref=news/1265639083012E28; fcnwebtv, 02/10/2009 KTVU2 News - 500+ Fremont Residents Protest A’s Stadium; Carolyn Jones, “A’s Halt Plans for Ballpark Village in Fremont,” San Francisco Chronicle, February 21, 2009, sec. Metro; Denis C. Theriault and Mercuty News, “A’s Owner Heads South for Options,” East Bay Times (blog), February 10, 2009, https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2009/02/10/as-owner-heads-south-for-options/.

 

Edited by SFGiants58
New "F"
  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • SFGiants58 changed the title to MLB: The Defunct Saga - Silicon Valley Athletics of Fremont Added

For the metallic gold San Jose A's, I'm curious how it would look if you flipped the colors on the script and colors (at least on the home jersey). 

For the Fremont A's, I wonder if the little flare at the bottom left of the "F" would look better if it pointed upward instead of down. Something about that flare and the tail under "Fremont" both pointing downward seems off to me. 

 

Great work as always! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/10/2021 at 10:41 AM, coco1997 said:

For the metallic gold San Jose A's, I'm curious how it would look if you flipped the colors on the script and colors (at least on the home jersey). 

For the Fremont A's, I wonder if the little flare at the bottom left of the "F" would look better if it pointed upward instead of down. Something about that flare and the tail under "Fremont" both pointing downward seems off to me. 

 

Great work as always! 

 

Thanks! The gold-heavy A's design is a bit much, IMHO:

 

SJAthletics-Homeand-Road-AD.png

 

It might look better IRL, but metallic gold in general is hard to pull off (IMHO).

 

Also, you're right about the serif. It looks much better with a more normal Blackletter serif. I've updated the concept accordingly.

 

FREAthletics-Fcompared.png

 

I also adjusted the middle of the middle stroke to be less rigid.

 

Now, for the ancient update!

 

HOUSTON + MILWAUKEE CARDINALS - Tax Evasion Escapades

 

I copypasta'd the original story, while also making updates to the scripts. Now things fit in more with my revised Cardinals concept, what with smaller birds on the bat. I also replaced the "M" in "Milwaukee" to look less ridiculous.

 

HOUCardinals-Road-Compared.png MILCardinals-Road-Compared.png

 

This was one of the more surprising relocation threats I discovered in my research. While reading this excellent thread,  I learned that the Cardinals almost moved to either Houston or Milwaukee. Fred Saigh, the team’s owner, had to sell the team due to tax evasion charges. Groups in both Houston (the base of their AAA team, the Buffs) and Milwaukee (with Fred Miller of the eponymous beer company) had eyes on the team. Of course, Saigh wanted to keep the Cardinals in St. Louis, so he sold the team to Anheuser-Busch Inc. for less than what Fred Miller was offering.1 However, what if either deal went through and the Cardinals left St. Louis?

 

I figured that the team would have a similar course in their identity. The birds-on-bat would go away in 1956, only to return in 1957 and stay in place (albeit with road versions) due to team/fan uproar. However, there will be key differences in their overall visual composition.

 

HOUSTON CARDINALS

 

The team has an “H” cap logo meant to invoke the current “St. L” insignia’s style, alongside a roundel for the red alternate.

 

HOUCardinals-Logo-Sheet-N.png

 

The uniforms are red-heavy in accessories, as Houston has a bit more of a “red” feeling than St. Louis. The University of Houston Cougars, Houston Rockets, my ideal Texans uniforms (thanks @oldschoolvikings), and the orange-centric Astros all lead me to that conclusion. There is a “Houston” road wordmark if only to codify the team with their new location.

 

HOUCardinals-Homeand-Road.png

 

The first set of alternates include a red top for home/road use and a navy cap with a red bill, for playing on the road against other teams with red caps (e.g., the Reds).

 

HOUCardinals-Alts1.png

 

The throwback/fauxback alternates include a recreation of the early-mid 1940s uniforms, alongside a button-front/belted pants version of the powder blue set. I figured that Oilers nostalgia, plus the Cardinals’ 1980s success, would endear the fans to that color. I also made a “Houston” version of the 1950s-’90s birds-on-bat, for a little vintage touch.

 

HOUCardinals-Alts2.png

 

MILWAUKEE CARDINALS

 

I decided to go for a decidedly more navy-centric look. Having lived in Milwaukee and observing the other teams in the area, navy and other shades of blue seem more fitting than a red-centric appearance. I revived the shield from my first Cardinals concept for this purpose.

 

MILCardinals-Logo-Sheet-N.png

 

The caps of these uniforms feature an “M” in the “St.L” insignia’s style, along with a navy crown and red bill. My logic dictated that the team would maintain navy-crowned caps to fit with the traditional aesthetic of Milwaukee baseball. Navy belts also appear alongside the caps. I made a “Milwaukee” wordmark for the road uniform, again to assert the new location.

 

MILCardinals-Homeand-Road.png

 

The first set of alternates is a throwback to the mid-40s and a “Milwaukee-ized” powder blue set, complete with a retro wordmark logo. I figured that powder blue was a very “Milwaukee” color, so it worked as an alternate.

 

MILCardinals-Alts1.png

 

The red cap does appear (along with matching belts), albeit as a Sunday alternate cap and as a variant on the powder blue outfit (my reasoning: it was worn in the 1970s, yet was dumped by the turn of the 1980s, not unlike the Astros’ orange cap). It’s too good not to use somewhere.

 

MILCardinals-Alts2.png

 

The dugout jackets reflect the new color distributions in each location, with the Swingin’ Bird on the chest. The 1940s alternate has its own jacket.

 

78uVDQN.png

OXbN1mK.png

 

IByKxvF.png

 

While I’m glad the Cardinals stayed in St. Louis (as the more successful team than the dumpster fire known as the Browns), both alternatives would have been interesting to see. Heck, Milwaukee Cardinals vs. Chicago Cubs might be an even better rivalry than St. Louis Cardinals vs. Chicago Cubs! At the very least, it’d be a revelation as to how much of the BFiB is marketing and how much of it is St. Louis itself. C+C is appreciated, as always!

 

Cardinals-Road.png

 

Up next, a little detour to The Beehive State.

 

1Frank Jackson, “Now Batting for the Houston Cardinals, No. 6, Stan Musial?,” Fangraphs/The Hardball Times, March 29, 2012, https://www.fangraphs.com/tht/now-batting-for-the-houston-cardinals-no-6-stan-musial/.  RetroSimba, “How Close Did Cardinals Come to Moving to Milwaukee?,” RetroSimba, January 17, 2013, https://retrosimba.com/2013/01/17/how-close-did-cardinals-come-to-moving-to-milwaukee/.

 

Edited by SFGiants58
Correct link now
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • SFGiants58 changed the title to MLB: The Defunct Saga - HOU/MIL Cardinals Updated

The updated serif on the Fremont "F" is a definite improvement.

 

I actually like the gold scripts on the SJ A's but only on the home set. The gold would also probably work better with hunter green:

spacer.png

Your updated Cardinals relocations look great, too. Looking forward to see what you do with Utah!

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.