Griffinmarlins

2012 MLB Season

Recommended Posts

I agree. That's not the answer.

I wonder what MLB thinks is still an option in Oakland?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. That's not the answer.

I wonder what MLB thinks is still an option in Oakland?

Honestly I don't think they currently think anything IS an option in Oakland. I mean Oakland keeps throwing out ideas, but they keep dying almost immediately. Coliseum North died when the city and Wolff realized that with over 100 property owners, getting the site together just wasn't happening. Victory Court died a slow death when the city didn't even finished their own promised and funded EIR on the site (and they realized there were about 30 site owners many of whom had no interest in selling). Coliseum City was thrown out as a "see what sticks" idea, however the site has been rejected numerous times by MLB and the A's (no interest in ballparks surrounded by industrial wasteland). And the most recent idea, Howard Terminal, died a quick death when the city realized it would cost them over 250 million more than any other site due to environmental cleanup, access, and transit issues. And that doesn't include all the sites the city rejected back in 2000 when HOK Sport (now Populous) did a study for them.

What seems more likely is MLB is simply biding their time. Whether for the Giants to have finished paying off Pac Bell Park (which was one of the Giants biggest concerns), or the A's to simply get fed up and give up on SJ for greener pastures I'm not sure. The third option I can think of doesn't seem likely, ie: someone else buying the A's and building them a private ballpark in Oakland doesn't seem likely to happen with a 1.2 billion price tag and rising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see MLB ever forcing the Giants to yield San Jose. That's part of the asset package they bought, and it wouldn't be any more fair than arbitrarily taking away the SF logo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see MLB ever forcing the Giants to yield San Jose. That's part of the asset package they bought, and it wouldn't be any more fair than arbitrarily taking away the SF logo.

I can. But it'll be at a price. The Giants will be forced to set a price that's somewhat reasonable given the value of the territory and it'll be up to Wolff and Fisher to pay it. Estimates have been anywhere from 100 to 500 million (average has been around 250 million dollars). Question will be when will Selig finally impose it since he's already waited 1324 days, and will Wolff pay it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sacramento may seem like a small market, but the RiverCats (AAA) often draw more than Oakland. Wait until the Kings leave - and they will... Sacramento is starved for entertainment. They'd easily be the largest market without a professional franchise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see MLB ever forcing the Giants to yield San Jose. That's part of the asset package they bought, and it wouldn't be any more fair than arbitrarily taking away the SF logo.

I can. But it'll be at a price. The Giants will be forced to set a price that's somewhat reasonable given the value of the territory and it'll be up to Wolff and Fisher to pay it. Estimates have been anywhere from 100 to 500 million (average has been around 250 million dollars). Question will be when will Selig finally impose it since he's already waited 1324 days, and will Wolff pay it.

There's a reason why the Commissioner has waited this long, and it's exactly why I can't ever see it happening. Such a move would require an autocratic Commish willing to force an individual team to do his bidding. Completely out of character for Selig, who builds consensus for every significant move before acting (and abandoning grand plans when he can't secure that consensus).

Perhaps if and when he steps down, there might be a chance. But then we're even farther away from the sale of the Giants, which makes stripping away their assets even harder to take.

The only scenario I can see is when he sells the team it becomes a condition of the sale,

as moving the Astros to the AL was. But that move was seen to increase the value of the club, not lessen it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's stupid that San Jose is considered the Giants' territory when every other two-team market has the same overlapping territory. That being said, I don't want the A's to move anywhere, most certainly not San Jose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sacramento may seem like a small market, but the RiverCats (AAA) often draw more than Oakland. Wait until the Kings leave - and they will... Sacramento is starved for entertainment. They'd easily be the largest market without a professional franchise.

Exactly. Sacramento may not be an ideal location as of now, and if the A's were to move there soon they'd probably be getting in on the market too soon, but it's potential for growth is what makes it at least a somewhat viable option. The Sacramento area is the fastest growing area in the state of California in the last decade and with a ton of land and reasonable real estate prices it's only going to get bigger. Sacramento may not be the perfect spot as of right now for the A's, but what other option do they have that doesn't involve them moving out of the state completely or begging the Giants to just give them the territorial rights to the largest city in the Bay Area for practically nothing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is probably a stupid question, but why can't they build a new stadium in the Coliseum parking lot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is probably a stupid question, but why can't they build a new stadium in the Coliseum parking lot?

Better question. Would you build a stadium in the Coliseum's parking lot, particularly when you'd have to do it with $500+ million of your own money (there is no public money available for an A's ballpark as the city, county and state are nearly broke)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's a good point. Might as well find a better location if youre going to spend that much.

And OT but, what's the Raiders situation right now? Are they still possibly going to share the new Niners stadium?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is probably a stupid question, but why can't they build a new stadium in the Coliseum parking lot?

Better question. Would you build a stadium in the Coliseum's parking lot, particularly when you'd have to do it with $500+ million of your own money (there is no public money available for an A's ballpark as the city, county and state are nearly broke)?

I thought Oakland was suggesting a complex in the parking lot for football and baseball stadiums. Or was it just "you can build here with your own money, but we won't let you build anywhere else"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know that the city is saying that they can't build it anywhere else, but there are only so many sites that the city has any control over.

The Coliseum parking lot has the advantage of already being allocated for sports, with no additional land cleanup or acquisition needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is probably a stupid question, but why can't they build a new stadium in the Coliseum parking lot?

Better question. Would you build a stadium in the Coliseum's parking lot, particularly when you'd have to do it with $500+ million of your own money (there is no public money available for an A's ballpark as the city, county and state are nearly broke)?

I thought Oakland was suggesting a complex in the parking lot for football and baseball stadiums. Or was it just "you can build here with your own money, but we won't let you build anywhere else"?

You got it half right. The city suggested it as, all 3 teams can build here with their money. But that's it. So far the Warriors have shown no interest and are going full bore on their new SF Arena, the A's also showed no interest and have continued with SJ. The Raiders have shown some interest, but they also don't have the financial resources to build the football stadium 100% privately. They'd need public help that isn't likely to come.

.

Also someone asked about them vis-a-vis Santa Clara. The Raiders have expressed no interest in Santa Clara since Al Davis died. And have actually come out a pair of times now saying they wouldn't be moving there (but as we know with sports owners talk is cheap).

I don't know that the city is saying that they can't build it anywhere else, but there are only so many sites that the city has any control over.

The Coliseum parking lot has the advantage of already being allocated for sports, with no additional land cleanup or acquisition needed.

Of course it also has all the disadvantages the Coliseum has had these last 45 years. Including being surrounded by industrial wasteland, bad neighborhoods, empty lots, and frankly no surrounding businesses worth patronizing. Which really only works these days for football, not baseball and basketball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see MLB ever forcing the Giants to yield San Jose. That's part of the asset package they bought, and it wouldn't be any more fair than arbitrarily taking away the SF logo.

I can. But it'll be at a price. The Giants will be forced to set a price that's somewhat reasonable given the value of the territory and it'll be up to Wolff and Fisher to pay it. Estimates have been anywhere from 100 to 500 million (average has been around 250 million dollars). Question will be when will Selig finally impose it since he's already waited 1324 days, and will Wolff pay it.

There's a reason why the Commissioner has waited this long, and it's exactly why I can't ever see it happening. Such a move would require an autocratic Commish willing to force an individual team to do his bidding. Completely out of character for Selig, who builds consensus for every significant move before acting (and abandoning grand plans when he can't secure that consensus).

Perhaps if and when he steps down, there might be a chance. But then we're even farther away from the sale of the Giants, which makes stripping away their assets even harder to take.

The only scenario I can see is when he sells the team it becomes a condition of the sale,

as moving the Astros to the AL was. But that move was seen to increase the value of the club, not lessen it.

I agree with this. Gothamite stated correctly that Selig has not been a heavy-handed commissioner for the most part during his tenure. Forcing the Giants to give up San Jose as part of their "territory" isn't a typical Selig move.

Perhaps not as important but also probably on Selig's mind, Roger Goodell and David Stern have taken loads of criticism in recent months for their autocratic handling of their respective leagues, and Selig probably wants to do all he can to avoid taking the MLB in that direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure he cares at all about the criticism (which is part and parcel of being a public figure, which he's been since the 1960s).

I think acting unilaterally just isn't in his nature. He believes in making radical changes to his organization, but appears to believe that those changes, because they are radical, need to arise from a consensus rather than be imposed from above.

I find it hard to visualize an instance where he forces one team to shut up and go along just because he says so. It's not in his character.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure he cares at all about the criticism (which is part and parcel of being a public figure, which he's been since the 1960s).

I think acting unilaterally just isn't in his nature. He believes in making radical changes to his organization, but appears to believe that those changes, because they are radical, need to arise from a consensus rather than be imposed from above.

I find it hard to visualize an instance where he forces one team to shut up and go along just because he says so. It's not in his character.

I don't necessarily believe that Selig cares about criticism of himself, but I think he is wholly committed to steering the MLB clear of potential controversy. I just think he doesn't want headlines like the NFL has had of late with concussions, bounties, and replacement refs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.