Cisco Field DEAD IN THE WATER

[The_Admiral]

I don't see the A's as being more crucial to the American League than many of the other teams, and actually see them as less so.

Really. Hm. Given their championships, alumni, sartorial and developmental innovations, so on, so forth, I'd put them in a solid third place behind the Yankees and Red Sox if you had to make some sort of "flagship ranking" or something. I'm not even going to attempt the National League, because it's pretty well-balanced between a number of clubs, but in the A.L., the first three teams that should come to mind are the Yankees, the Red Sox, and the A's.

I'm not an A's fan, by the way.

[McCall]

I don't see the A's as being more crucial to the American League than many of the other teams, and actually see them as less so.

Really. Hm. Given their championships, alumni, sartorial and developmental innovations, so on, so forth, I'd put them in a solid third place behind the Yankees and Red Sox if you had to make some sort of "flagship ranking" or something. I'm not even going to attempt the National League, because it's pretty well-balanced between a number of clubs, but in the A.L., the first three teams that should come to mind are the Yankees, the Red Sox, and the A's.

I'm not an A's fan, by the way.

Actually, despite their 9 World Championships, I'd put the Tigers ahead of them. That's mainly due to the number of changes in locale for the A's. If they were still in Philly today, that's be one thing. But being in Philly, then KC, currently Oakland, and where ever in the future, kind of puts a dimmer light on the organization. Though I'm not one for contraction. I'd say move'em to either San Jose or Sacramento. Portland, if they have to leave Northern California.

[rams80]

I don't see the A's as being more crucial to the American League than many of the other teams, and actually see them as less so.

Really. Hm. Given their championships, alumni, sartorial and developmental innovations, so on, so forth, I'd put them in a solid third place behind the Yankees and Red Sox if you had to make some sort of "flagship ranking" or something. I'm not even going to attempt the National League, because it's pretty well-balanced between a number of clubs, but in the A.L., the first three teams that should come to mind are the Yankees, the Red Sox, and the A's.

I'm not an A's fan, by the way.

Actually, despite their 9 World Championships, I'd put the Tigers ahead of them. That's mainly due to the number of changes in locale for the A's. If they were still in Philly today, that's be one thing. But being in Philly, then KC, currently Oakland, and where ever in the future, kind of puts a dimmer light on the organization. Though I'm not one for contraction. I'd say move'em to either San Jose or Sacramento. Portland, if they have to leave Northern California.

IDK....does moving diminish the legacy of the Dodgers or the Giants? If anything, the moves make the Athletics more emblematic of baseball's history; moving west as the game itself expanded its boundaries.

[Gothamite]

Had the Giants and Dodgers been run out of two towns, then you might be right. And FWIW, I do hold it against the Braves as well.

The White Sox are also uniform innovators. That doesn't make them somehow automatically essential to the League.

[The_Admiral]

They threw a World Series, good for at least 5th or 6th place in notability.

[Your Name Here]

I get irritated when anyone proposes contracting any team. Baseball hasn't contracted since 1900; why start now? Contraction would have to be done in pairs. When I thought about it, I could think of at least a couple of reasons to keep 29 clubs - the only exception was the Rays. Though, you can't get rid of them now.

[dfwabel]

Statement from the A's today:

"We have fully exhausted our time and resources over the years with the City of Oakland, dating back to previous A's ownership.

We recognize conditions have not changed. Letters to Major league Baseball offer nothing new or of any real substance. Outside stimulation to have us continue to play in an aging and shared facility may generate press and "sound-bite" opportunities, but do not provide any tangible alterations in the circumstances we face.

We understand the facility continues to cost the city of Oakland and Alameda County millions of lost dollars per year. Sadly, the business and corporate base of the city of Oakland was very limited when we purchased the team and has eroded since. Our attendance and low number of season ticket holders (both one of the lowest in Major league Baseball) also continues to decline; even when our on-field performance produced play-off participation.

We appreciate the sincere interest of Mayor Ron Dellums, Supervisors Scott Haggerty and Gail Steele and local citizen Sherman Balch, as the very few people that have offered encouragement and in-depth understanding about our situation.

Our goal and desire for the organization is to determine a way to keep the team in Northern California. That goal has not changed.

We have no interest in covering old ground again, as we need to move forward in finding a future home for our team."

[dfwabel]

I am bumping this as Lew Wolff did an extended interview which was released today on the Athletic Nation website.

Extended Lew Wolff interview in which he talks about a future home

It is in Q&A format, so here are some highlights.

Interviewer: Before we get into what's next for the A's ballpark search, back up and tell me about what happened with Fremont. The last time we met and did an interview, I know you were pretty frustrated with the whole process because I could see it on your face. You seemed pretty perturbed with what had been going on.

Wolff: I'll be happy to give you the details but they're a little complicated. Basically my frustration was not with the city council. It wasn't with Fremont. It was more with two different groups, which I'll explain in a minute, and the process in California where having the elected officials on board isn't enough. The process has become the end product in California. So many people live off the process and there's so many ways to stretch the process and thwart it that I wasn't just worried about our ballpark but how you can get things done in California. We'll find out. I hope the stimulus package where they're saying things are "shovel ready," which they're going to need to be to create jobs, but if they have to go through the process every time of constant review and consultants and stuff then I'm concerned. And some of that stuff is very necessary. Well we could've been under construction next year and had a private stimulus package of our own but that isn't the way it turned out.

Interviewer: So then what happened?

Wolff: Here's what happened. Most fans really don't care about the process, I don't think. They just want to know if we can win games. But my job is to figure out how we get a facility that will work for us and retain players and so on. In the area called Pacific Commons, the land that we were buying from Cisco, the adjacent retailers and the actual owner of the site, Cisco, had an option and we were taking their option, on which they had spent a lot of money already. The company was called Catellus, which is now called ProLogis. OK so you have a land owner there and Cisco was originally going to do a campus there. There were some clauses in the transaction before it started that said that if we were proposing something that could be very detrimental to the retailers they could protest it. Since at that moment, we thought we would be adding potentially 9,000 people living there who could walk to Costco and Lowe's and Kohl's and others we didn't feel that issue was ever going to be a big problem and neither did Cisco.

(Later)

Interviewer: Then how are you going about the process then? Do you have a priority list of places that might have been right there when you decided to try for Fremont?

Wolff: In Oakland you mean?

Interviewer: No, just in Northern California in general.

Wolff: That's the problem. In the district we're assigned, it's either Oakland or Fremont. The ideal location probably would've been, when I got here, not today, downtown Oakland. When you go downtown you don't have the same issues of parking and traffic and a lot of single family people being concerned. So most of the ballparks have been built in non-residential areas; San Francisco, San Diego, Denver. When we couldn't figure out how to do it, we were sort of our own risk of creating a downtown a little bit in Fremont which would've been great but then the market changed a lot for residential and retail. I don't know if that answers your question.

Interviewer: Well you say Northern California that can include a lot of places, places like Sacramento...

Wolff: I heard they have a pretty nice new ballpark in Omaha but I don't want to have to fly to Omaha to see our games. The one thing we haven't done no matter what anyone will tell you is that I have never threatened to go to another city outside the state. Every ballpark effort that I've seen the owner has always threatened to take the team elsewhere if he didn't get this or that. We haven't done any of that.

[DustDevil61]

If not Sacramento, then I side with the Las Vegas Athletics idea. Their nickname couldn't just be the A's, but also the Aces! They could use a spade for an alternate logo. If not there, then Salt Lake City or Portland.

[DarkJourney]

The A's are stuck in Oakland or will move out of California all together

[The_Admiral]

Reading is a skill: the article says they'll probably be anywhere in California except Oakland.

[dfwabel]

Reading is a skill: the article says they'll probably be anywhere in California except Oakland.

Thank you for reading and correlating what he said into realistic statements. Why do I even provide links at all since most CCSLC members just look at the next thread and not read links or do better google research from what I have recently seen? But that is another "Sports In General" thread. Please read links and other answers, people.

[DarkJourney]

With the way California is going I don't see it

[gueman]

Well they could move back east, Charlotte and Norfolk could be strong candidates. But that could cause all kinds of realignment issues. I don't see another city in Cali footing the bill for a stadium with the shape the Cali economy is in according to the media. I don't live there so I don't know. Face it the A's were trying to mine the Silicon Valley and the cash was gone. Vancouver could also work but would they stay in the AL so close to Seattle or swap leagues with say Colorado or AZ?

[The_Admiral]

Did we not just read that Wolff doesn't want to take the team out of northern California.

[Gothamite]

Did we not just read that Wolff doesn't want to take the team out of northern California.

Yes, he did.

Just as he kept repeatedly criticizing the state of California and its political climate for not being new-ballpark-friendly.

Methinks he may protest too much.

[tp49]

Did we not just read that Wolff doesn't want to take the team out of northern California.

Yes, he did.

Just as he kept repeatedly criticizing the state of California and its political climate for not being new-ballpark-friendly.

Methinks he may protest too much.

He may protest too much but he's right. The political climate is not new-ballpark friendly unless ownership wants to foot the bill.

Realistically they will either be in Sacramento or Oakland. If they came up here they'd have to build a stadium probably where Raley Field is currently. Foundation issues preclude them from adding on to Raley Field. This could lead to an interesting thought regarding the Kings. Since they are hell bent on a new arena at Cal Expo (horrible idea) what would work well is a deal where the City of West Sacramento and Yolo County work to build an arena on the land between Raley Field and US 50.

However, I think it's better for the A's to remain in Oakland and seek to build a new stadium in the parking lot of the Oakland Colisseum where they currently are.

[The_Admiral]

I'm not sure that would work unless the existing Coliseum were to be demolished, and I don't think the Raiders would agree to that.

[FiddySicks]

Did we not just read that Wolff doesn't want to take the team out of northern California.

Yes, he did.

Just as he kept repeatedly criticizing the state of California and its political climate for not being new-ballpark-friendly.

Methinks he may protest too much.

He may protest too much but he's right. The political climate is not new-ballpark friendly unless ownership wants to foot the bill.

Realistically they will either be in Sacramento or Oakland. If they came up here they'd have to build a stadium probably where Raley Field is currently. Foundation issues preclude them from adding on to Raley Field. This could lead to an interesting thought regarding the Kings. Since they are hell bent on a new arena at Cal Expo (horrible idea) what would work well is a deal where the City of West Sacramento and Yolo County work to build an arena on the land between Raley Field and US 50.

However, I think it's better for the A's to remain in Oakland and seek to build a new stadium in the parking lot of the Oakland Colisseum where they currently are.

Where did you hear that? Part of the reason the train yard was picked as the spot for Raley Field is because they were banking on thought that some time in the semi-near future it'd be expanded to accommodate a Major League club. The already slim chance that Sac had of one day getting a big league team is completely gone if that's true.

[tp49]

He may protest too much but he's right. The political climate is not new-ballpark friendly unless ownership wants to foot the bill.

Realistically they will either be in Sacramento or Oakland. If they came up here they'd have to build a stadium probably where Raley Field is currently. Foundation issues preclude them from adding on to Raley Field. This could lead to an interesting thought regarding the Kings. Since they are hell bent on a new arena at Cal Expo (horrible idea) what would work well is a deal where the City of West Sacramento and Yolo County work to build an arena on the land between Raley Field and US 50.

However, I think it's better for the A's to remain in Oakland and seek to build a new stadium in the parking lot of the Oakland Colisseum where they currently are.

Where did you hear that? Part of the reason the train yard was picked as the spot for Raley Field is because they were banking on thought that some time in the semi-near future it'd be expanded to accommodate a Major League club. The already slim chance that Sac had of one day getting a big league team is completely gone if that's true.

Can't remember whether it was in The Bee or on one of the local television stations but somewhere it was stated that Raley Field is not expandable due to the foundation not being capable of supporting additional structure. I also remember the team's ownership not being happy that the information leaked. There is nothing wrong with the site itself. The street and utility plan was designed with expansion in mind.

I'd love to see the A's here, and I think that area is also the best place to build the Kings arena (though they should have seriously also consider ARCO's current site or Downtown Plaza.)