San Jose A's

[bosrs1]

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

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

It's complicated, but unlike Boston where all of New England sees Boston as the center of their local universe, the Bay Area and California in general can be very city centric when it comes to their view of things. Add into it the reality that Oakland is a struggling city having everything ripped away from them (military, jobs, population, and now sports teams) and it is very apparent why they're opposed to it.

Also the Pats move was different in the time it happened, and the end result. The Pats aren't technically "Boston's team" anymore they're New England's. That said they're not any other city's team either. This would be more akin to the Pats having moved to say Providence and having become the Providence Patriots. They wouldn't still be "Boston's team" then would they?

As for the San Jose taxpayers, they win. The ballpark isn't being built with public funds. It's a 100% private venture not unlike the Giants ballpark in San Francisco. The only thing the city had to provide was land in a prime location, the environmental studies and some ancillary development around the park like rerouting a road. They've done or at least funded all of that. The reason Oakland is DOA is they weren't even able to do that much. All Oakland in the end has been able to offer the A's is their own crappy parking lot at the Coliseum in the same crappy neighborhood they've been stuck in for 45 years.

[Proc]

Philadelphia A's...Kansas City A's...Oakland A's...San Jose A's...

[NJTank]

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

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

[JStamper]

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

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

It's complicated, but unlike Boston where all of New England sees Boston as the center of their local universe, the Bay Area and California in general can be very city centric when it comes to their view of things. Add into it the reality that Oakland is a struggling city having everything ripped away from them (military, jobs, population, and now sports teams) and it is very apparent why they're opposed to it.

Also the Pats move was different in the time it happened, and the end result. The Pats aren't technically "Boston's team" anymore they're New England's. That said they're not any other city's team either. This would be more akin to the Pats having moved to say Providence and having become the Providence Patriots. They wouldn't still be "Boston's team" then would they?

As for the San Jose taxpayers, they win. The ballpark isn't being built with public funds. It's a 100% private venture not unlike the Giants ballpark in San Francisco. The only thing the city had to provide was land in a prime location, the environmental studies and some ancillary development around the park like rerouting a road. They've done or at least funded all of that. The reason Oakland is DOA is they weren't even able to do that much. All Oakland in the end has been able to offer the A's is their own crappy parking lot at the Coliseum in the same crappy neighborhood they've been stuck in for 45 years.

Gottcha. I guess it is an apples to oranges comparison between Boston/new England vs. Oakland/California. Thanks for the insight, it seemed odd to me that a 30 mile move would be a big deal but I get what you're saying.

[FiddySicks]

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

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

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

So yeah - the ballpark can be a huge factor.

Exactly. And just look at the team just across the bay from the A's and how well a new stadium helped them. They were on the brink of moving to Tampa in the years before AT&T Park was built. Now they're one of the most profitable teams in all of baseball. Now I'm not saying a new park is an absolute slam dunk, but considering the upswing in population alone the A's will see by moving to San Jose and the fact that people love spending their hard earned money to go sit in fancy new ballparks, the A's in the very least have set themselves up for a ton of new potential revenue. It may not come through 100%, but it'll at least be an opportunity they couldn't even think of having in Oakland.

And the more I think about it, the fans who would ditch the A's over a 30 mile change really aren't fans IMO. They need to drop this petty pride crap and quit being so spoiled. There are people out there (like me) who have to drive 200+ miles and back every time they want to go to a game.

[speedy]

As for the Patriots argument, don't you remember the planned move to Hartford before CMGI/Gillette Stadium? The team sucked and people in south eastern New England were still flipping out.

[BigDaddyChacon]

Ok, currently which team is more popular in San Jose? Giants, or the A's? The Sharks played their first season in San Francisco, nobody seemed to care, and the bay area shares a basketball team.

I googled the driving time, and it's around 45min from San Jose to Oakland. It's around the same distance from Tacoma to Seattle, and I know there are a lot of Mariner, and Seahawk season ticket holders in Tacoma. This really is not THAT big of a deal, maybe calling them the "Bay Area Athletics", or "San Jose/Oakland Athletics" could make the move a little less hostile to existing A's fans? Yeah, those names are not that great, but it is just an idea.

Nope. It's San Jose A's (Athletics). They're contractually obligated to change per their contract with San Jose, and Wolff has now officially stated the name is going to be San Jose Athletics. No at's, of's, or other Anaheim style nonsense. And no Oakland A's (who really play in San Jose) garbage like the Giants, Jets, and soon the 49ers either.

And while I understand that might hurt a few militant Oakland fans, it's equally hurtful to me as a long time south bay A's fan who has made the drive to Oakland dozens of times a season for 25 years to hear things like, the team will change, the drive is too far, it's too hard without public transit, San Jose isn't the same area,... etc... I call BS on all of that. If you're a fan you'll find a way to get there since this move is no different than when the Angels moved from Chavez Ravine to Anaheim. It's no different than when the Yankees moved from Manhattan to the Bronx. It's no different than when the Marlins moved from Miami Gardens to Miami this year...

I completely agree. I too live in San Jose and I'm also a long-time A's fan. I have no problem driving to Oakland, since I've been going there since I was 5 year's old. Hearing pro-Oakland fans saying that they won't drive to San Jose and support the A's, sickens me. Unfortunately, Lew Wolff will not spend big money on marquee players while the A's remain in Oakland. If true A's fan really want the team to succeed, then they should support the move to San Jose. This situation is the worst thing that could've happened to A's fans, as it has split the fan base. Instead of being pro-Oakland or pro-San Jose, we need to be pro-A's. If we want the A's to be competitive and stay local, San Jose is the way to go.

[The_Admiral]

You know, every team can't magically leap into the wonderful world of competitive balance through expanded revenue streams. Teams and talent remain finite. You can have a sweetheart lease and a team-owned cable channel and still lose out to teams with even sweeter leases and more lucrative cable channels. The A's probably won't become much more than what they are -- at best, they can be a steady operation like the Padres, or a weak organization buttressed by the occasional moneybomb like the Nationals. Baseball's inequity is now too systemic, too crystallized.

[bosrs1]

You know, every team can't magically leap into the wonderful world of competitive balance through expanded revenue streams. Teams and talent remain finite. You can have a sweetheart lease and a team-owned cable channel and still lose out to teams with even sweeter leases and more lucrative cable channels. The A's probably won't become much more than what they are -- at best, they can be a steady operation like the Padres, or a weak organization buttressed by the occasional moneybomb like the Nationals. Baseball's inequity is now too systemic, too crystallized.

I disagree. The A's were competitive for 6 seasons as recently as 6 years ago. Put that same organization in a new stadium with the large market revenue streams that will come with the larger SJ and overall large bay area and you'll have another Giants or Angels on your hands. Not a Padres or Nationals.

[Quillz]

You know, every team can't magically leap into the wonderful world of competitive balance through expanded revenue streams. Teams and talent remain finite. You can have a sweetheart lease and a team-owned cable channel and still lose out to teams with even sweeter leases and more lucrative cable channels. The A's probably won't become much more than what they are -- at best, they can be a steady operation like the Padres, or a weak organization buttressed by the occasional moneybomb like the Nationals. Baseball's inequity is now too systemic, too crystallized.

I disagree. The A's were competitive for 6 seasons as recently as 6 years ago. Put that same organization in a new stadium with the large market revenue streams that will come with the larger SJ and overall large bay area and you'll have another Giants or Angels on your hands. Not a Padres or Nationals.

Exactly. I think the Rays were a perfect example of just how good any franchise can be with a good front office that knows what they're doing and a good revenue stream. The A's could definitely be a strong franchise again in the future, and I think the move to San Jose would be the best place to start.

[JStamper]

As for the Patriots argument, don't you remember the planned move to Hartford before CMGI/Gillette Stadium? The team sucked and people in south eastern New England were still flipping out.

It takes almost 2 hours to get from Boston to Hartford, its not 30 miles

[JStamper]

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

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

Oh, your right, economics have no impact on winning and losing in baseball, and a new ballpark doesnt impact a team in terms of revenue. They have a salary cap and everyone is on an equal financial playing field. Thanks for clarifying that for me.

A new park guarentees nothing, but it will increase revenue and can give a team like the A's a fighting chance.

[Saintsfan]

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

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

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

Source:

And besides, what are they going to do with the team if they can't go to San Jose?

Portland? Charlotte? doubtful

Contraction with the Rays? can't see the PA ever allowing that

(In fact, on a side note, if they ever want to really get rid of the DH, I think they will have to actually EXPAND by 2 teams to make that happen to offset the loss of DH jobs...unlikely, but maybe possible in 10 years or so when some fringe MLB cities grow bigger.)

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

Whilst not disagreeing with the general idea that the DH is here to stay, as much as I dislike it, basketball in the NBA has many rules different from every other level of the game. It doesn't follow that the MLB has to follow the rules others use.

[sorcerer77]

Philadelphia A's...Kansas City A's...Oakland A's...San Jose A's...

No doubt, the overall A's franchise has had too many locations over the years. Hopefully, they will stay in San Jose for a long time, which would benefit MLB. Certainly, the new San Jose A's will be able to draw from Oakland area residents for attendance, along with San Jose area residents who have ties to Oakland. And there are definitely some San Jose people who could have cared less about the A's prior to this move, but will start supporting these new A's. At some level, it will always sting to lose a team which produced many highlights over the decades, but this happens any time a team is relocated. I'm not an A's fan, but have respected what they accomplished in Oakland. While relocation can be a benefit for a league as a whole, we must acknowledge the negative effects upon a city and those hometown fans.

As I've said before, sports franchises aren't like Walmart stores, which are virtually identical across the country. The moments, accomplishments, and history are always unique to the city in which they occurred and so is that special bond which is generational. Technically, all the overall history for the A's franchise is bundled together for all the different stops, but that's just record keeping. For example, even some younger Oakland A's fans would naturally be more aware of names like Joe Rudi and Vida Blue. And quite naturally, more San Jose fans would not recognize those names. In most respects, the San Jose A's are starting over, and it will take time to build that history and bond with the San Jose community. When the San Jose A's win their first division title and pennant, that will be a major moment in the new chapter for the A's. As time passes, and more homegrown players are only wearing a San Jose uniform, that will play a role as well.

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

It definitely will be San Jose. It's a completely different metropolitan area. It's not like the Pistons playing in Auburn Hills and calling themselves Detroit, because Auburn Hills is a suburb; or the Jets and Giants; Redskins; the list is endless.

[bosrs1]

It definitely will be San Jose. It's a completely different metropolitan area. It's not like the Pistons playing in Auburn Hills and calling themselves Detroit, because Auburn Hills is a suburb; or the Jets and Giants; Redskins; the list is endless.

And therein lies why some people in Oakland are upset over a "30 mile move". The team isn't moving to an Oakland suburb like so many teams have done so before, they're moving to the largest city in the Bay Area. One so much larger and more affluent that it makes Oakland look like a suburb itself.

[sorcerer77]

The other aspect to this issue goes back to the length of time the A's were in Oakland, and the considerable success(5 World Titles), they won in Oakland. This is far different than other relocations, like when the New Orleans Jazz moved to Utah and kept the nickname. The Jazz were in New Orleans a short time with little success before moving west.

[The_Admiral]

bosrs1, you have to stop jerking off about how San Jose is the most important thing in the history of California or I'm going to slap you. I'm pretty sure it's not that great. (Source: friends who live around the Bay)

You know, every team can't magically leap into the wonderful world of competitive balance through expanded revenue streams. Teams and talent remain finite. You can have a sweetheart lease and a team-owned cable channel and still lose out to teams with even sweeter leases and more lucrative cable channels. The A's probably won't become much more than what they are -- at best, they can be a steady operation like the Padres, or a weak organization buttressed by the occasional moneybomb like the Nationals. Baseball's inequity is now too systemic, too crystallized.

I disagree. The A's were competitive for 6 seasons as recently as 6 years ago. Put that same organization in a new stadium with the large market revenue streams that will come with the larger SJ and overall large bay area and you'll have another Giants or Angels on your hands. Not a Padres or Nationals.

Exactly. I think the Rays were a perfect example of just how good any franchise can be with a good front office that knows what they're doing and a good revenue stream. The A's could definitely be a strong franchise again in the future, and I think the move to San Jose would be the best place to start.

I didn't say they couldn't be strong, just that upward mobility has been limited by just how wide the stratification of the major leagues has become. Try as they may these days, everyone cannot be the Red Sox. If every single team has a shiny new ballpark and corporate welfare and all that jazz, someone still has to finish last and get poached all the time. I'm not saying that that will continue to be the A's, just that it's no guarantee that a baseball park in an office park will transport them overnight to the tier of the Phillies, Angels, or Rangers, who themselves are still behind the Yankees and Red Sox.

[bosrs1]

bosrs1, you have to stop jerking off about how San Jose is the most important thing in the history of California or I'm going to slap you. I'm pretty sure it's not that great. (Source: friends who live around the Bay)

You know, every team can't magically leap into the wonderful world of competitive balance through expanded revenue streams. Teams and talent remain finite. You can have a sweetheart lease and a team-owned cable channel and still lose out to teams with even sweeter leases and more lucrative cable channels. The A's probably won't become much more than what they are -- at best, they can be a steady operation like the Padres, or a weak organization buttressed by the occasional moneybomb like the Nationals. Baseball's inequity is now too systemic, too crystallized.

I disagree. The A's were competitive for 6 seasons as recently as 6 years ago. Put that same organization in a new stadium with the large market revenue streams that will come with the larger SJ and overall large bay area and you'll have another Giants or Angels on your hands. Not a Padres or Nationals.

Exactly. I think the Rays were a perfect example of just how good any franchise can be with a good front office that knows what they're doing and a good revenue stream. The A's could definitely be a strong franchise again in the future, and I think the move to San Jose would be the best place to start.

I didn't say they couldn't be strong, just that upward mobility has been limited by just how wide the stratification of the major leagues has become. Try as they may these days, everyone cannot be the Red Sox. If every single team has a shiny new ballpark and corporate welfare and all that jazz, someone still has to finish last and get poached all the time. I'm not saying that that will continue to be the A's, just that it's no guarantee that a baseball park in an office park will transport them overnight to the tier of the Phillies, Angels, or Rangers, who themselves are still behind the Yankees and Red Sox.

Your bias is showing, not that you've done much to hide it.

No one is jerking off about San Jose. But your characterization of San Jose as "an office park" just goes to prove you know nothing about it, or its place in the Bay Area. Might want to inform yourself before posting next time, and by inform yourself try learning something about it rather than just taking your "friends" opinion as fact.

As for whether a new park will guarantee they'll do better on field, there is no such guarantee. Just as spending 200 million on payroll hasn't always guaranteed the Yankees a post season berth. That said removing some of the dead weights that playing in their dilapidated mausoleum in crappy South Oakland with few fans showing up and next to no corporate support will at least help the A's not always be that team at the bottom being poached all the time.

[The_Admiral]

Okay. But a lot of these assumptions seem rooted in the idea that there are scores of consumers and corporations who are just champing at the bit to spend huge amounts of money on baseball at a time when people and businesses are trying to curb their spending. We should know by now that the mythical New Ballpark isn't the panacea it's made out to be. St. Louis promised an entire mixed-use neighborhood and delivered a hole in the ground. The Nationals couldn't even sell their naming rights. I think sometimes we still catch ourselves in that turn-of-the-millennium mentality where there are supposedly these floods of money just waiting to wash over us and carry us away and all we have to do is "creatively" open the gates. I don't exactly feel that the A's are on that precipice, nor are the Cubs, nor are any other struggling sports teams.

EDIT: nope, not going to revise the dam/cliff mixed metaphor