2012 MLB & Logo Changes

[DC in Da House w/o a Doubt]

That's why they should be the Golden State Athletics.

[zpqmaowl]

Well, it's called the San Francisco Bay area because the bay is called the San Francisco Bay, and it's not San Francisco + the surrounding bay area.

[Lights Out]

Los Angeles looks pretty good, but the New York script everyone's clamoring about for the Mets does not.

If done right, it could look good.

[JStamper]

WOW...for some reason that looks way too minor league for me. I guess I need to wrap my head around the whole "They don't play in Oakland anymore" idea. Must have been what the Brooklyn fans felt about the Dodgers when they first saw 'Los Angeles' on their unis.

I'm on Bring Back the Vet's side on this one. I hope the de-emphasize the city and stick with the nickname on the unis like the Dodgers did for so long. I like 'Los Angeles' on a jersey partly because the name is so well known and recognizable. I just don't think 'San Jose' has earned the right to have their name on an MLB jersey yet...but thats just me.

i totally agree with you

"Athletics" on all jerseys would work for me

I live in Boston, don't have a dog in this fight, but if San Jose invests millions in tax breaks or infrastructure improvements for a ballpark and fans actually show up (unlike Oakland), they have "earned" the right to have their cities name on an MLB Jersey.

[powersurge]

Honestly, if Oakland didn't just always have teams, would most people born in the 80s or later have ever heard of it? If teams hadn't moved there back in the day, would anyone be mentioning Oakland as a landing spot for a struggling franchise? I think that goes for other "major league" cities as well, which is an intangible that I think can almost justify the lengths to which cities will go to acquire or hold on to their teams.

As for whoever said that San Jose hasn't "earned" the right, well "earned" is a stupid word to use there. I posted about this a while back, but it comes down to an east coast "urban" bias, and by that I mean that the country has changed and what most of us think of as the characteristics of a "major league" city just doesn't apply anymore. I haven't been there, but have family there that I've spoken to, and by all accounts, San Jose is what most of us who are used to the east coast would consider a suburb (I won't go as far as to say "office park with a mayor", but still.) But so what? The population is there, the money is there, the infrastructure is there (remember, most of the "traditional" major league cities got teams before car transportation was feasible for everyone, and those cities did not (and some still do not) have modern infrastructure in place.)

As a major piece of the SF Bay Area, there's not really a good reason that I've heard that SJ shouldn't be home to a major team or teams. They're still drawing from the same overall market, but are now better positioned to draw from a younger and more affluent part of it. Granted there's a lot I don't know, but it seems to me like Oakland is dying economically, and isn't really a true rival to SF anymore (not just from a sports perspective). If you're going to have teams "represent" sub sections of markets, maybe in 2012, SJ is a better rival to pit against SF.

That being said, I'd still go with just an A on all jerseys and caps.

Its more than just population and being a great place to live. If that were the determining factor then San Antonio, Austin, Fort Worth, Jacksonville, Columbus, and San Jose would all have MULTIPLE major sports franchises across the board among the major 4 sports leagues; so why don't they? Some of these cities have ONE major sports team but to be honest not one of them can be deemed as a professional multi sports town like New York, LA, Chicago, Houston, Detroit, St. Louis, Washington, etc.

So is using the word "earned" REALLY a "stupid word to use there"? I don't think so. As great as San Jose really is they truly haven't established themselves yet as a viable sports town and haven't differentiated themselves apart from the other viable sports towns in their state. Therefore seeing their name across the front of an MLB jersey would look odd and somewhat out of place; though in time I'm sure we would all get used to it. I just don't think I would like it very much at this moment...but thats just me.

[powersurge]

WOW...for some reason that looks way too minor league for me. I guess I need to wrap my head around the whole "They don't play in Oakland anymore" idea. Must have been what the Brooklyn fans felt about the Dodgers when they first saw 'Los Angeles' on their unis.

I'm on Bring Back the Vet's side on this one. I hope the de-emphasize the city and stick with the nickname on the unis like the Dodgers did for so long. I like 'Los Angeles' on a jersey partly because the name is so well known and recognizable. I just don't think 'San Jose' has earned the right to have their name on an MLB jersey yet...but thats just me.

i totally agree with you

"Athletics" on all jerseys would work for me

I live in Boston, don't have a dog in this fight, but if San Jose invests millions in tax breaks or infrastructure improvements for a ballpark and fans actually show up (unlike Oakland), they have "earned" the right to have their cities name on an MLB Jersey.

So if Springfield Massachusetts invested millions of dollars in tax breaks and infrastructure improvements for a ballpark and fans actually show up and the Red Sox moved there then by your logic they would have "earned" the right to be called the "Springfield Red Sox"? Far fetched, but I hope you realize what I'm getting at.

[RedSox44]

WOW...for some reason that looks way too minor league for me. I guess I need to wrap my head around the whole "They don't play in Oakland anymore" idea. Must have been what the Brooklyn fans felt about the Dodgers when they first saw 'Los Angeles' on their unis.

I'm on Bring Back the Vet's side on this one. I hope the de-emphasize the city and stick with the nickname on the unis like the Dodgers did for so long. I like 'Los Angeles' on a jersey partly because the name is so well known and recognizable. I just don't think 'San Jose' has earned the right to have their name on an MLB jersey yet...but thats just me.

i totally agree with you

"Athletics" on all jerseys would work for me

I live in Boston, don't have a dog in this fight, but if San Jose invests millions in tax breaks or infrastructure improvements for a ballpark and fans actually show up (unlike Oakland), they have "earned" the right to have their cities name on an MLB Jersey.

So if Springfield Massachusetts invested millions of dollars in tax breaks and infrastructure improvements for a ballpark and fans actually show up and the Red Sox moved there then by your logic they would have "earned" the right to be called the "Springfield Red Sox"? Far fetched, but I hope you realize what I'm getting at.

But the thing is, the Red Sox haven't relocated 3 times. They've never relocated. They've always been in Boston.

The Athletics on the other hand, have relocated 3 times, and soon a 4th. Philadelphia. Kansas City. Oakland. And now San Jose. There was never "Portland Red Sox" or "Cleveland Red Sox" or "Newark Red Sox". They've always just been the "Boston Red Sox". The A's have been in three different cities. They are the number one example of a "wandering franchise". The name "Athletics" hasn't been so deeply ingrained in one city the way "Red Sox" is with "Boston".

"San Jose Athletics" fits, and I'm sure we'll all get to used to it.

[FiddySicks]

Honestly, if Oakland didn't just always have teams, would most people born in the 80s or later have ever heard of it? If teams hadn't moved there back in the day, would anyone be mentioning Oakland as a landing spot for a struggling franchise? I think that goes for other "major league" cities as well, which is an intangible that I think can almost justify the lengths to which cities will go to acquire or hold on to their teams.

As for whoever said that San Jose hasn't "earned" the right, well "earned" is a stupid word to use there. I posted about this a while back, but it comes down to an east coast "urban" bias, and by that I mean that the country has changed and what most of us think of as the characteristics of a "major league" city just doesn't apply anymore. I haven't been there, but have family there that I've spoken to, and by all accounts, San Jose is what most of us who are used to the east coast would consider a suburb (I won't go as far as to say "office park with a mayor", but still.) But so what? The population is there, the money is there, the infrastructure is there (remember, most of the "traditional" major league cities got teams before car transportation was feasible for everyone, and those cities did not (and some still do not) have modern infrastructure in place.)

As a major piece of the SF Bay Area, there's not really a good reason that I've heard that SJ shouldn't be home to a major team or teams. They're still drawing from the same overall market, but are now better positioned to draw from a younger and more affluent part of it. Granted there's a lot I don't know, but it seems to me like Oakland is dying economically, and isn't really a true rival to SF anymore (not just from a sports perspective). If you're going to have teams "represent" sub sections of markets, maybe in 2012, SJ is a better rival to pit against SF.

That being said, I'd still go with just an A on all jerseys and caps.

Its more than just population and being a great place to live. If that were the determining factor then San Antonio, Austin, Fort Worth, Jacksonville, Columbus, and San Jose would all have MULTIPLE major sports franchises across the board among the major 4 sports leagues; so why don't they? Some of these cities have ONE major sports team but to be honest not one of them can be deemed as a professional multi sports town like New York, LA, Chicago, Houston, Detroit, St. Louis, Washington, etc.

So is using the word "earned" REALLY a "stupid word to use there"? I don't think so. As great as San Jose really is they truly haven't established themselves yet as a viable sports town and haven't differentiated themselves apart from the other viable sports towns in their state. Therefore seeing their name across the front of an MLB jersey would look odd and somewhat out of place; though in time I'm sure we would all get used to it. I just don't think I would like it very much at this moment...but thats just me.

Frankly, San Jose has the population and economic infrastructure to support the A's, much better than Oakland does. The million people San Jose hast to offer could care less if the rest of the country recognizes San Jose as a well known city. When the A's move south, they'll be known as the San Jose A's, regardless of the ignorance/misinformation of the rest of the country.

And whoever suggested the Golden State A's, just no. No no no. A thousand times no. The culture and lifestyle of Northern California and Southern California are extremely different. If Northern and Southern Californians can separate themselves from one another, theyll do it almost every time. But even calling them the Northern California A's would be a HUGE stretch. the Warriors were dumb for using the Golden State moniker, but that'll change to San Francisco soon enough if the plans to build the arena on the Embarcadero next to AT&T Park pick up steam. Really, Oakland is on the verge of losing all three of their pro teams within the next decade, and they probably should. (BTW I say that as an East Bay native).

[powersurge]

Honestly, if Oakland didn't just always have teams, would most people born in the 80s or later have ever heard of it? If teams hadn't moved there back in the day, would anyone be mentioning Oakland as a landing spot for a struggling franchise? I think that goes for other "major league" cities as well, which is an intangible that I think can almost justify the lengths to which cities will go to acquire or hold on to their teams.

As for whoever said that San Jose hasn't "earned" the right, well "earned" is a stupid word to use there. I posted about this a while back, but it comes down to an east coast "urban" bias, and by that I mean that the country has changed and what most of us think of as the characteristics of a "major league" city just doesn't apply anymore. I haven't been there, but have family there that I've spoken to, and by all accounts, San Jose is what most of us who are used to the east coast would consider a suburb (I won't go as far as to say "office park with a mayor", but still.) But so what? The population is there, the money is there, the infrastructure is there (remember, most of the "traditional" major league cities got teams before car transportation was feasible for everyone, and those cities did not (and some still do not) have modern infrastructure in place.)

As a major piece of the SF Bay Area, there's not really a good reason that I've heard that SJ shouldn't be home to a major team or teams. They're still drawing from the same overall market, but are now better positioned to draw from a younger and more affluent part of it. Granted there's a lot I don't know, but it seems to me like Oakland is dying economically, and isn't really a true rival to SF anymore (not just from a sports perspective). If you're going to have teams "represent" sub sections of markets, maybe in 2012, SJ is a better rival to pit against SF.

That being said, I'd still go with just an A on all jerseys and caps.

Its more than just population and being a great place to live. If that were the determining factor then San Antonio, Austin, Fort Worth, Jacksonville, Columbus, and San Jose would all have MULTIPLE major sports franchises across the board among the major 4 sports leagues; so why don't they? Some of these cities have ONE major sports team but to be honest not one of them can be deemed as a professional multi sports town like New York, LA, Chicago, Houston, Detroit, St. Louis, Washington, etc.

So is using the word "earned" REALLY a "stupid word to use there"? I don't think so. As great as San Jose really is they truly haven't established themselves yet as a viable sports town and haven't differentiated themselves apart from the other viable sports towns in their state. Therefore seeing their name across the front of an MLB jersey would look odd and somewhat out of place; though in time I'm sure we would all get used to it. I just don't think I would like it very much at this moment...but thats just me.

Frankly, San Jose has the population and economic infrastructure to support the A's, much better than Oakland does. The million people San Jose hast to offer could care less if the rest of the country recognizes San Jose as a well known city. When the A's move south, they'll be known as the San Jose A's, regardless of the ignorance/misinformation of the rest of the country.

And whoever suggested the Golden State A's, just no. No no no. A thousand times no. The culture and lifestyle of Northern California and Southern California are extremely different. If Northern and Southern Californians can separate themselves from one another, theyll do it almost every time. But even calling them the Northern California A's would be a HUGE stretch. the Warriors were dumb for using the Golden State moniker, but that'll change to San Francisco soon enough if the plans to build the arena on the Embarcadero next to AT&T Park pick up steam. Really, Oakland is on the verge of losing all three of their pro teams within the next decade, and they probably should. (BTW I say that as an East Bay native).

I think you are missing the point....it has nothing to do with "ignorance". I would bet that most of America might realize and/or acknowledge that cities like San Jose, San Antonio, Austin, and Columbus are some of the largest and thriving cities in America but in regards to where they stand in the world of pro sports they are relatively unkown or not as well known as a number of other major sports towns. Face it, as great as San Jose is they have ZERO World Series titles associated with them and ZERO years in the AL; history is hard to erase. Oakland has it, San Jose doesn't. Just because the people and the money is there it doesn't mean that the history has to follow. As much as I support a new stadium for the A's I grew up cheering for the OAKLAND A's....not the SAN JOSE A's, or the FREEMONT A's, or whatever. Will I get used to the San Jose A's? I guess I will have to...just like the Brooklyn Dodger fans had to adjust to hearing the name Los Angeles Dodgers. But it doesn't mean that it will happen overnight. I've never gotten used to the Anaheim Angels and thankfully I will never have to now that they changed their name. San Jose will probably treat the A's with open arms but in my book it just doesn't sound right.

[SJAnfield]

I cringe adding my two cents into this conversation, but I will anyway.

First let me say I can understand the sentiment behind not liking the A's leaving behind their Oakland moniker. The franchise has made a lot of history under the Oakland name, and it may feel like that history is being left behind. That being said, the idea San Jose isn't well known enough or doesn't deserve the name is rather ridiculous to me. San Jose is the heart of Silicon Valley, known across the GLOBE. This is the home of many of the world's major tech companies such as Cisco, Adobe and eBay. It has a metro population of 2 million people and is still part of the San Francisco Bay Area, basically one giant contiguous city consisting of 7.5 million people. You can travel from Oakland to San Jose to San Francisco using only city streets. This move isn't really a dramatic one. San Francisco may have the tourist appeal, and Oakland the history of Raider and Athletics legends, but San Jose is the population and economic center of the Bay Area, and its time to demand a little respect.

San Jose doesn't have the sporting history of San Francisco or Oakland, but this is mainly due to the fact San Jose didn't experience its major growth until after the San Francisco and Oakland franchises were already in place. Also political factors weighed in early on as residents weren't wild about major growth or use of public resources in the 50's-70's. Still, it is home to the NHL Sharks and MLS Earthquakes. While the Earthquakes might not be a major franchise (yet), the Sharks are known across the country and up north WITH the San Jose name attached. And besides, whats wrong with growing newer markets? Should we never get a new franchise because San Jose wasn't a major sports city in the past? Are we not worthy of the Athletics? If the team moved to Sacramento, would they be allowed to use a Sacramento Script? Maybe we need to re-name the franchise and kill all the history. I may be reading too much into previous posters comments, but saying San Jose doesn't deserve or shouldn't be showcased because they don't have history seems a little elitist (okay, probably just me. Maybe a little sore people aren't giving my hometown enough props )

The fact is San Jose has more people, more money and more potential for growth. this is why they are moving and taking on the name. I honestly love Oakland, but I have to say they've had their chance and its time to move on. Oakland is in a bad situation right now and will not be able to support the A's for the foreseeable future. The San Jose A's look to be a reality, and I can't wait to see that San Jose across their chest.

rant over.

[SFGiants58]

San Jose is worthy of a professional baseball franchise. It's bigger than Oakland, it can support a team better than Oakland, and it also is predisposed to a rivalry with San Francisco (one thing I don't want to lose, just re-name it the "Bayshore Series" or "El Camino Series"). While there is heritage in Oakland, there was also heritage for the A's in Philadelphia, and moving to KC was not much of a problem for the management then (until they became an unofficial Yankee farm team, but that's another rant). The "Athletics" or "A's" identity has been the only thing consistent in the franchise since 1901, and it will remain that way in San Jose.

Oakland, at this point in time, has done little to preserve their hold on their sports teams. They have neither placed any initiatives on ballot to build a new stadium, nor have they tried to renovate the Coliseum after "Mount Davis" got built. If no effort is taken by the city to keep their teams in said city, they might as well lose the team. At least when the Giants considered moving to San Jose and Tampa Bay, there were ballot measures put out for sales tax increases to fund a new stadium. Oakland has done little outside of speculative work to plan on keeping their teams, and at this rate, they could lose all of them by the end of the decade (Warriors to San Francisco, Raiders to LA/other California location, and A's to San Jose). It's a shame, but the city of Oakland still holds a good deal of the blame (I don't use economic decline as an excuse, as Detroit and Cleveland have been able to keep their teams from fleeing and to stimulate the local economy).

[FiddySicks]

Honestly, if Oakland didn't just always have teams, would most people born in the 80s or later have ever heard of it? If teams hadn't moved there back in the day, would anyone be mentioning Oakland as a landing spot for a struggling franchise? I think that goes for other "major league" cities as well, which is an intangible that I think can almost justify the lengths to which cities will go to acquire or hold on to their teams.

As for whoever said that San Jose hasn't "earned" the right, well "earned" is a stupid word to use there. I posted about this a while back, but it comes down to an east coast "urban" bias, and by that I mean that the country has changed and what most of us think of as the characteristics of a "major league" city just doesn't apply anymore. I haven't been there, but have family there that I've spoken to, and by all accounts, San Jose is what most of us who are used to the east coast would consider a suburb (I won't go as far as to say "office park with a mayor", but still.) But so what? The population is there, the money is there, the infrastructure is there (remember, most of the "traditional" major league cities got teams before car transportation was feasible for everyone, and those cities did not (and some still do not) have modern infrastructure in place.)

As a major piece of the SF Bay Area, there's not really a good reason that I've heard that SJ shouldn't be home to a major team or teams. They're still drawing from the same overall market, but are now better positioned to draw from a younger and more affluent part of it. Granted there's a lot I don't know, but it seems to me like Oakland is dying economically, and isn't really a true rival to SF anymore (not just from a sports perspective). If you're going to have teams "represent" sub sections of markets, maybe in 2012, SJ is a better rival to pit against SF.

That being said, I'd still go with just an A on all jerseys and caps.

Its more than just population and being a great place to live. If that were the determining factor then San Antonio, Austin, Fort Worth, Jacksonville, Columbus, and San Jose would all have MULTIPLE major sports franchises across the board among the major 4 sports leagues; so why don't they? Some of these cities have ONE major sports team but to be honest not one of them can be deemed as a professional multi sports town like New York, LA, Chicago, Houston, Detroit, St. Louis, Washington, etc.

So is using the word "earned" REALLY a "stupid word to use there"? I don't think so. As great as San Jose really is they truly haven't established themselves yet as a viable sports town and haven't differentiated themselves apart from the other viable sports towns in their state. Therefore seeing their name across the front of an MLB jersey would look odd and somewhat out of place; though in time I'm sure we would all get used to it. I just don't think I would like it very much at this moment...but thats just me.

Frankly, San Jose has the population and economic infrastructure to support the A's, much better than Oakland does. The million people San Jose hast to offer could care less if the rest of the country recognizes San Jose as a well known city. When the A's move south, they'll be known as the San Jose A's, regardless of the ignorance/misinformation of the rest of the country.

And whoever suggested the Golden State A's, just no. No no no. A thousand times no. The culture and lifestyle of Northern California and Southern California are extremely different. If Northern and Southern Californians can separate themselves from one another, theyll do it almost every time. But even calling them the Northern California A's would be a HUGE stretch. the Warriors were dumb for using the Golden State moniker, but that'll change to San Francisco soon enough if the plans to build the arena on the Embarcadero next to AT&T Park pick up steam. Really, Oakland is on the verge of losing all three of their pro teams within the next decade, and they probably should. (BTW I say that as an East Bay native).

I think you are missing the point....it has nothing to do with "ignorance". I would bet that most of America might realize and/or acknowledge that cities like San Jose, San Antonio, Austin, and Columbus are some of the largest and thriving cities in America but in regards to where they stand in the world of pro sports they are relatively unkown or not as well known as a number of other major sports towns. Face it, as great as San Jose is they have ZERO World Series titles associated with them and ZERO years in the AL; history is hard to erase. Oakland has it, San Jose doesn't. Just because the people and the money is there it doesn't mean that the history has to follow. As much as I support a new stadium for the A's I grew up cheering for the OAKLAND A's....not the SAN JOSE A's, or the FREEMONT A's, or whatever. Will I get used to the San Jose A's? I guess I will have to...just like the Brooklyn Dodger fans had to adjust to hearing the name Los Angeles Dodgers. But it doesn't mean that it will happen overnight. I've never gotten used to the Anaheim Angels and thankfully I will never have to now that they changed their name. San Jose will probably treat the A's with open arms but in my book it just doesn't sound right.

Good points all around, and I can agree that history is hard to change and moves are hard to get used to. San Jose is such a perfect spot though because in some senses it's a breakout city. Rapidly growing, lots of money, and access to a HUGE metropolitan area. All in all, the move is so minor compared to just about every other move a sports team has made because they're not even leaving the region and will keep most of their fans. I can understand the hesitation to accept San Jose right now, but a decade after the move it will prove to be enormously successful IMO. I grew up rooting for the OAKLAND A's too, but the benefits of movin to and renaming the team San Jose far outweighs the loss of the Oakland name. If not for San Jose getting them they might've ended up in Sacramento (still my biggest dream, but won't happen) Las Vegas (which would REALLY suck), or even contraction. They'll be in so much better position to compete and actually bring in great revenue due to such a small move.

[The_Admiral]

I wish they could build somewhere in Alameda County so they could still be the Oakland A's. Maybe somewhere between San Jose and Oakland, best of both worlds.

EDIT: hey, that would've been Fremont! whoops!

[McCall]

Los Angeles looks pretty good, but the New York script everyone's clamoring about for the Mets does not.

If done right, it could look good.

Show me a good example of it working and I'll say it can.

[rainmaker17]

It's like Arlington (TX) getting butt-hurt when referred to as Dallas. Clean up that sh#t hole meth-addicted town and get a viable mass transit system, then complain .

[powersurge]

Honestly, if Oakland didn't just always have teams, would most people born in the 80s or later have ever heard of it? If teams hadn't moved there back in the day, would anyone be mentioning Oakland as a landing spot for a struggling franchise? I think that goes for other "major league" cities as well, which is an intangible that I think can almost justify the lengths to which cities will go to acquire or hold on to their teams.

As for whoever said that San Jose hasn't "earned" the right, well "earned" is a stupid word to use there. I posted about this a while back, but it comes down to an east coast "urban" bias, and by that I mean that the country has changed and what most of us think of as the characteristics of a "major league" city just doesn't apply anymore. I haven't been there, but have family there that I've spoken to, and by all accounts, San Jose is what most of us who are used to the east coast would consider a suburb (I won't go as far as to say "office park with a mayor", but still.) But so what? The population is there, the money is there, the infrastructure is there (remember, most of the "traditional" major league cities got teams before car transportation was feasible for everyone, and those cities did not (and some still do not) have modern infrastructure in place.)

As a major piece of the SF Bay Area, there's not really a good reason that I've heard that SJ shouldn't be home to a major team or teams. They're still drawing from the same overall market, but are now better positioned to draw from a younger and more affluent part of it. Granted there's a lot I don't know, but it seems to me like Oakland is dying economically, and isn't really a true rival to SF anymore (not just from a sports perspective). If you're going to have teams "represent" sub sections of markets, maybe in 2012, SJ is a better rival to pit against SF.

That being said, I'd still go with just an A on all jerseys and caps.

Its more than just population and being a great place to live. If that were the determining factor then San Antonio, Austin, Fort Worth, Jacksonville, Columbus, and San Jose would all have MULTIPLE major sports franchises across the board among the major 4 sports leagues; so why don't they? Some of these cities have ONE major sports team but to be honest not one of them can be deemed as a professional multi sports town like New York, LA, Chicago, Houston, Detroit, St. Louis, Washington, etc.

So is using the word "earned" REALLY a "stupid word to use there"? I don't think so. As great as San Jose really is they truly haven't established themselves yet as a viable sports town and haven't differentiated themselves apart from the other viable sports towns in their state. Therefore seeing their name across the front of an MLB jersey would look odd and somewhat out of place; though in time I'm sure we would all get used to it. I just don't think I would like it very much at this moment...but thats just me.

Frankly, San Jose has the population and economic infrastructure to support the A's, much better than Oakland does. The million people San Jose hast to offer could care less if the rest of the country recognizes San Jose as a well known city. When the A's move south, they'll be known as the San Jose A's, regardless of the ignorance/misinformation of the rest of the country.

And whoever suggested the Golden State A's, just no. No no no. A thousand times no. The culture and lifestyle of Northern California and Southern California are extremely different. If Northern and Southern Californians can separate themselves from one another, theyll do it almost every time. But even calling them the Northern California A's would be a HUGE stretch. the Warriors were dumb for using the Golden State moniker, but that'll change to San Francisco soon enough if the plans to build the arena on the Embarcadero next to AT&T Park pick up steam. Really, Oakland is on the verge of losing all three of their pro teams within the next decade, and they probably should. (BTW I say that as an East Bay native).

I think you are missing the point....it has nothing to do with "ignorance". I would bet that most of America might realize and/or acknowledge that cities like San Jose, San Antonio, Austin, and Columbus are some of the largest and thriving cities in America but in regards to where they stand in the world of pro sports they are relatively unkown or not as well known as a number of other major sports towns. Face it, as great as San Jose is they have ZERO World Series titles associated with them and ZERO years in the AL; history is hard to erase. Oakland has it, San Jose doesn't. Just because the people and the money is there it doesn't mean that the history has to follow. As much as I support a new stadium for the A's I grew up cheering for the OAKLAND A's....not the SAN JOSE A's, or the FREEMONT A's, or whatever. Will I get used to the San Jose A's? I guess I will have to...just like the Brooklyn Dodger fans had to adjust to hearing the name Los Angeles Dodgers. But it doesn't mean that it will happen overnight. I've never gotten used to the Anaheim Angels and thankfully I will never have to now that they changed their name. San Jose will probably treat the A's with open arms but in my book it just doesn't sound right.

Good points all around, and I can agree that history is hard to change and moves are hard to get used to. San Jose is such a perfect spot though because in some senses it's a breakout city. Rapidly growing, lots of money, and access to a HUGE metropolitan area. All in all, the move is so minor compared to just about every other move a sports team has made because they're not even leaving the region and will keep most of their fans. I can understand the hesitation to accept San Jose right now, but a decade after the move it will prove to be enormously successful IMO. I grew up rooting for the OAKLAND A's too, but the benefits of movin to and renaming the team San Jose far outweighs the loss of the Oakland name. If not for San Jose getting them they might've ended up in Sacramento (still my biggest dream, but won't happen) Las Vegas (which would REALLY suck), or even contraction. They'll be in so much better position to compete and actually bring in great revenue due to such a small move.

I totally agree. Maybe I'm being as clear about my feelings of the move. I think the move is very important for the team's ability to be a viable franchise and being competitive now and into the future. They will certainly die in Oakland. I'm NOT against the move. My point is that all that put aside, just in regard to the aesthetics of the name and identity and such I'm not a fan. I was less of a fan of the Freemont A's project. Am I excited that Cisco has committed to naming rights to a state of the art branch new stadium project and that the team will once again have the opportunity to play in front of sell out crowds again like they once did? Of course I am. I just can't get my head wrapped around the whole San Jose A's thing and quite frankly I was making a point that until it becomes a household name (which in time it probably will) Its just doesn't sound right. And it will take many years for many fans including myself to recognize the team as being the San Jose A's and not just the Oakland A's who moved to San Jose. Thats where the "earned" comes in. They have to earn it through creating a history of their own and that comes from time passing and great years of competition. I would bet that many former Baltimore Colts fans, Brooklyn Dodger fans, New York baseball Giants fans would understand what I was getting at.

[bosrs1]

By population:

1. New York

2. Los Angeles

3. Chicago

4. Houston

5. Philadelphia

6. Phoenix

7. San Antonio

8. San Diego

9. Dallas

10. San José

11. Jacksonville

12. Indianapolis

13. San Francisco

?

44. Miami

45. Cleveland

46. Tulsa

47. Oakland

48. Minneapolis

That's not that important though, since SF, OAK, and SJ are all part of the same Combined Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is what really matters. They (and more importantly their adertisers) are selling their product to the entire region, including Freemont, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, etc. In fact, that's all the more reason why Oakland (and eventually San Jose) shouldn't really wear a specific local on their uniforms and just market more regionally. I don't think that most would argue though that San Francisco is still the "center of influence" for the region though. In fact, the metro statistical area is called the SF Bay Area.

They're in the same CSA yes, but not the same MSA. Oakland and SF are in a different MSA from San Jose. And the CSA is not called the SF Bay Area, rather it is called "San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland" officially.

[bosrs1]

Honestly, if Oakland didn't just always have teams, would most people born in the 80s or later have ever heard of it? If teams hadn't moved there back in the day, would anyone be mentioning Oakland as a landing spot for a struggling franchise? I think that goes for other "major league" cities as well, which is an intangible that I think can almost justify the lengths to which cities will go to acquire or hold on to their teams.

As for whoever said that San Jose hasn't "earned" the right, well "earned" is a stupid word to use there. I posted about this a while back, but it comes down to an east coast "urban" bias, and by that I mean that the country has changed and what most of us think of as the characteristics of a "major league" city just doesn't apply anymore. I haven't been there, but have family there that I've spoken to, and by all accounts, San Jose is what most of us who are used to the east coast would consider a suburb (I won't go as far as to say "office park with a mayor", but still.) But so what? The population is there, the money is there, the infrastructure is there (remember, most of the "traditional" major league cities got teams before car transportation was feasible for everyone, and those cities did not (and some still do not) have modern infrastructure in place.)

As a major piece of the SF Bay Area, there's not really a good reason that I've heard that SJ shouldn't be home to a major team or teams. They're still drawing from the same overall market, but are now better positioned to draw from a younger and more affluent part of it. Granted there's a lot I don't know, but it seems to me like Oakland is dying economically, and isn't really a true rival to SF anymore (not just from a sports perspective). If you're going to have teams "represent" sub sections of markets, maybe in 2012, SJ is a better rival to pit against SF.

That being said, I'd still go with just an A on all jerseys and caps.

Its more than just population and being a great place to live. If that were the determining factor then San Antonio, Austin, Fort Worth, Jacksonville, Columbus, and San Jose would all have MULTIPLE major sports franchises across the board among the major 4 sports leagues; so why don't they? Some of these cities have ONE major sports team but to be honest not one of them can be deemed as a professional multi sports town like New York, LA, Chicago, Houston, Detroit, St. Louis, Washington, etc.

So is using the word "earned" REALLY a "stupid word to use there"? I don't think so. As great as San Jose really is they truly haven't established themselves yet as a viable sports town and haven't differentiated themselves apart from the other viable sports towns in their state. Therefore seeing their name across the front of an MLB jersey would look odd and somewhat out of place; though in time I'm sure we would all get used to it. I just don't think I would like it very much at this moment...but thats just me.

Frankly, San Jose has the population and economic infrastructure to support the A's, much better than Oakland does. The million people San Jose hast to offer could care less if the rest of the country recognizes San Jose as a well known city. When the A's move south, they'll be known as the San Jose A's, regardless of the ignorance/misinformation of the rest of the country.

And whoever suggested the Golden State A's, just no. No no no. A thousand times no. The culture and lifestyle of Northern California and Southern California are extremely different. If Northern and Southern Californians can separate themselves from one another, theyll do it almost every time. But even calling them the Northern California A's would be a HUGE stretch. the Warriors were dumb for using the Golden State moniker, but that'll change to San Francisco soon enough if the plans to build the arena on the Embarcadero next to AT&T Park pick up steam. Really, Oakland is on the verge of losing all three of their pro teams within the next decade, and they probably should. (BTW I say that as an East Bay native).

I think you are missing the point....it has nothing to do with "ignorance". I would bet that most of America might realize and/or acknowledge that cities like San Jose, San Antonio, Austin, and Columbus are some of the largest and thriving cities in America but in regards to where they stand in the world of pro sports they are relatively unkown or not as well known as a number of other major sports towns. Face it, as great as San Jose is they have ZERO World Series titles associated with them and ZERO years in the AL; history is hard to erase. Oakland has it, San Jose doesn't. Just because the people and the money is there it doesn't mean that the history has to follow. As much as I support a new stadium for the A's I grew up cheering for the OAKLAND A's....not the SAN JOSE A's, or the FREEMONT A's, or whatever. Will I get used to the San Jose A's? I guess I will have to...just like the Brooklyn Dodger fans had to adjust to hearing the name Los Angeles Dodgers. But it doesn't mean that it will happen overnight. I've never gotten used to the Anaheim Angels and thankfully I will never have to now that they changed their name. San Jose will probably treat the A's with open arms but in my book it just doesn't sound right.

Good points all around, and I can agree that history is hard to change and moves are hard to get used to. San Jose is such a perfect spot though because in some senses it's a breakout city. Rapidly growing, lots of money, and access to a HUGE metropolitan area. All in all, the move is so minor compared to just about every other move a sports team has made because they're not even leaving the region and will keep most of their fans. I can understand the hesitation to accept San Jose right now, but a decade after the move it will prove to be enormously successful IMO. I grew up rooting for the OAKLAND A's too, but the benefits of movin to and renaming the team San Jose far outweighs the loss of the Oakland name. If not for San Jose getting them they might've ended up in Sacramento (still my biggest dream, but won't happen) Las Vegas (which would REALLY suck), or even contraction. They'll be in so much better position to compete and actually bring in great revenue due to such a small move.

I totally agree. Maybe I'm being as clear about my feelings of the move. I think the move is very important for the team's ability to be a viable franchise and being competitive now and into the future. They will certainly die in Oakland. I'm NOT against the move. My point is that all that put aside, just in regard to the aesthetics of the name and identity and such I'm not a fan. I was less of a fan of the Freemont A's project. Am I excited that Cisco has committed to naming rights to a state of the art branch new stadium project and that the team will once again have the opportunity to play in front of sell out crowds again like they once did? Of course I am. I just can't get my head wrapped around the whole San Jose A's thing and quite frankly I was making a point that until it becomes a household name (which in time it probably will) Its just doesn't sound right. And it will take many years for many fans including myself to recognize the team as being the San Jose A's and not just the Oakland A's who moved to San Jose. Thats where the "earned" comes in. They have to earn it through creating a history of their own and that comes from time passing and great years of competition. I would bet that many former Baltimore Colts fans, Brooklyn Dodger fans, New York baseball Giants fans would understand what I was getting at.

To your point, I think that's an even bigger reason why they HAVE to be named the San Jose Athletics (A's). They may not have earned that identity you talk about initially, but eventually they will over time. If they were to just go with generic Golden State/Silicon Valley/Bay Area A's they'd never get the chance to earn that identity. You can see that same problem with the Golden State Warriors and the muddled identity they still have today because they never committed to any particular location.

[powersurge]

Honestly, if Oakland didn't just always have teams, would most people born in the 80s or later have ever heard of it? If teams hadn't moved there back in the day, would anyone be mentioning Oakland as a landing spot for a struggling franchise? I think that goes for other "major league" cities as well, which is an intangible that I think can almost justify the lengths to which cities will go to acquire or hold on to their teams.

As for whoever said that San Jose hasn't "earned" the right, well "earned" is a stupid word to use there. I posted about this a while back, but it comes down to an east coast "urban" bias, and by that I mean that the country has changed and what most of us think of as the characteristics of a "major league" city just doesn't apply anymore. I haven't been there, but have family there that I've spoken to, and by all accounts, San Jose is what most of us who are used to the east coast would consider a suburb (I won't go as far as to say "office park with a mayor", but still.) But so what? The population is there, the money is there, the infrastructure is there (remember, most of the "traditional" major league cities got teams before car transportation was feasible for everyone, and those cities did not (and some still do not) have modern infrastructure in place.)

As a major piece of the SF Bay Area, there's not really a good reason that I've heard that SJ shouldn't be home to a major team or teams. They're still drawing from the same overall market, but are now better positioned to draw from a younger and more affluent part of it. Granted there's a lot I don't know, but it seems to me like Oakland is dying economically, and isn't really a true rival to SF anymore (not just from a sports perspective). If you're going to have teams "represent" sub sections of markets, maybe in 2012, SJ is a better rival to pit against SF.

That being said, I'd still go with just an A on all jerseys and caps.

Its more than just population and being a great place to live. If that were the determining factor then San Antonio, Austin, Fort Worth, Jacksonville, Columbus, and San Jose would all have MULTIPLE major sports franchises across the board among the major 4 sports leagues; so why don't they? Some of these cities have ONE major sports team but to be honest not one of them can be deemed as a professional multi sports town like New York, LA, Chicago, Houston, Detroit, St. Louis, Washington, etc.

So is using the word "earned" REALLY a "stupid word to use there"? I don't think so. As great as San Jose really is they truly haven't established themselves yet as a viable sports town and haven't differentiated themselves apart from the other viable sports towns in their state. Therefore seeing their name across the front of an MLB jersey would look odd and somewhat out of place; though in time I'm sure we would all get used to it. I just don't think I would like it very much at this moment...but thats just me.

Frankly, San Jose has the population and economic infrastructure to support the A's, much better than Oakland does. The million people San Jose hast to offer could care less if the rest of the country recognizes San Jose as a well known city. When the A's move south, they'll be known as the San Jose A's, regardless of the ignorance/misinformation of the rest of the country.

And whoever suggested the Golden State A's, just no. No no no. A thousand times no. The culture and lifestyle of Northern California and Southern California are extremely different. If Northern and Southern Californians can separate themselves from one another, theyll do it almost every time. But even calling them the Northern California A's would be a HUGE stretch. the Warriors were dumb for using the Golden State moniker, but that'll change to San Francisco soon enough if the plans to build the arena on the Embarcadero next to AT&T Park pick up steam. Really, Oakland is on the verge of losing all three of their pro teams within the next decade, and they probably should. (BTW I say that as an East Bay native).

I think you are missing the point....it has nothing to do with "ignorance". I would bet that most of America might realize and/or acknowledge that cities like San Jose, San Antonio, Austin, and Columbus are some of the largest and thriving cities in America but in regards to where they stand in the world of pro sports they are relatively unkown or not as well known as a number of other major sports towns. Face it, as great as San Jose is they have ZERO World Series titles associated with them and ZERO years in the AL; history is hard to erase. Oakland has it, San Jose doesn't. Just because the people and the money is there it doesn't mean that the history has to follow. As much as I support a new stadium for the A's I grew up cheering for the OAKLAND A's....not the SAN JOSE A's, or the FREEMONT A's, or whatever. Will I get used to the San Jose A's? I guess I will have to...just like the Brooklyn Dodger fans had to adjust to hearing the name Los Angeles Dodgers. But it doesn't mean that it will happen overnight. I've never gotten used to the Anaheim Angels and thankfully I will never have to now that they changed their name. San Jose will probably treat the A's with open arms but in my book it just doesn't sound right.

Good points all around, and I can agree that history is hard to change and moves are hard to get used to. San Jose is such a perfect spot though because in some senses it's a breakout city. Rapidly growing, lots of money, and access to a HUGE metropolitan area. All in all, the move is so minor compared to just about every other move a sports team has made because they're not even leaving the region and will keep most of their fans. I can understand the hesitation to accept San Jose right now, but a decade after the move it will prove to be enormously successful IMO. I grew up rooting for the OAKLAND A's too, but the benefits of movin to and renaming the team San Jose far outweighs the loss of the Oakland name. If not for San Jose getting them they might've ended up in Sacramento (still my biggest dream, but won't happen) Las Vegas (which would REALLY suck), or even contraction. They'll be in so much better position to compete and actually bring in great revenue due to such a small move.

I totally agree. Maybe I'm being as clear about my feelings of the move. I think the move is very important for the team's ability to be a viable franchise and being competitive now and into the future. They will certainly die in Oakland. I'm NOT against the move. My point is that all that put aside, just in regard to the aesthetics of the name and identity and such I'm not a fan. I was less of a fan of the Freemont A's project. Am I excited that Cisco has committed to naming rights to a state of the art branch new stadium project and that the team will once again have the opportunity to play in front of sell out crowds again like they once did? Of course I am. I just can't get my head wrapped around the whole San Jose A's thing and quite frankly I was making a point that until it becomes a household name (which in time it probably will) Its just doesn't sound right. And it will take many years for many fans including myself to recognize the team as being the San Jose A's and not just the Oakland A's who moved to San Jose. Thats where the "earned" comes in. They have to earn it through creating a history of their own and that comes from time passing and great years of competition. I would bet that many former Baltimore Colts fans, Brooklyn Dodger fans, New York baseball Giants fans would understand what I was getting at.

To your point, I think that's an even bigger reason why they HAVE to be named the San Jose Athletics (A's). They may not have earned that identity you talk about initially, but eventually they will over time. If they were to just go with generic Golden State/Silicon Valley/Bay Area A's they'd never get the chance to earn that identity. You can see that same problem with the Golden State Warriors and the muddled identity they still have today because they never committed to any particular location.

I totally agree that the whole Golden State or Bay Area moniker is total generic garbage in terms of branding the team. I still don't get why the NBA's Warriors do that and I've never agreed with it. If I had my say it would be 'Athletics' on the home and away, but thats just me. If they have to put a city or region name then go with the city name.

[roxfan00]

Don't know if this is real or not...but a replica of the Rockies new road uniforms.

Colorado Rockies