Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
Inbox
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 27  Next >

Some news on A's and San Jose

Posted: 02/20/2013 7:27 PM

Some news on A's and San Jose 


http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-0221-athletics -san-jose-20130221,0,1177347.story
Reply | Quote

Posted: 02/20/2013 9:55 PM

RE: Some news on A's and San Jose 


www.mercurynews.com/oakland-as...er-misstatement

Oakland politicos looking more and more foolish. Really we're expecting these bozos to get this coliseum city project up to keep 2 or 3 of the current Oakland teams? They'd be lucky to have one team a decade from now playing in the city of Oakland.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 02/20/2013 9:55 PM

Re: Some news on A's and San Jose 


http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/b...ove-to-san-jose

I don't like the L.A Times, so here's another link that actually works. :)

Last edited 02/20/2013 10:03 PM by mofo1ma

Reply | Quote

Posted: 02/20/2013 10:39 PM

Re: Some news on A's and San Jose 


Oh sweet baby Jesus, thank you! Let's get this done!!!
Reply | Quote

Posted: 02/20/2013 10:41 PM

Re: Some news on A's and San Jose 


Could they vague it up some more? There's almost something new in the article.

Let me summarize: the A's are in limbo with the hope of possibly having a path out of limbo. But, maybe not. At any rate, if something were to happen, it's not happening any time soon.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 02/20/2013 10:57 PM

Re: Some news on A's and San Jose 




---------------------------------------------
--- voxhoo wrote:

Could they vague it up some more? There's almost something new in the article.

Let me summarize: the A's are in limbo with the hope of possibly having a path out of limbo. But, maybe not. At any rate, if something were to happen, it's not happening any time soon.

---------------------------------------------

I'm not sure we read the same article. It seems that MLB has created guidelines telling the A's what conditions they need to meet to get a vote. That is huge. That is progress. It assumes that the move to SJ is a viable option which is not what the Giants have said.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 02/20/2013 11:27 PM

Re: Some news on A's and San Jose 


I will quote the article and give my interpretation:

This doesn't mean a move is imminent
translation: not happening soon.

The guidelines themselves are unknown, but they are believed to be "fluid."
translation: there are "guidelines" but, we aren't sharing the "guidelines" because the "guidelines" can change. OK, who are we fooling? We aren't going to tell you what the "guidelines" are because there really aren't any "guidelines." We're just tired of people asking us when is the decision coming and this is the latest incarnation of the "blue ribbon commission." We hope that like the "blue ribbon commission," you will be lulled into thinking something is actually happening and maybe you'll leave us alone for a few more years before you start to suspect that the "guidelines" are a sham just like the "blue ribbon commission" was a sham. Then at that time, we'll figure out something else to stall some more.

Sorry for my cynicism, but it has been well earned.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 02/20/2013 11:38 PM

RE: Some news on A's and San Jose 


When is the last time MLB even came out with something like this for the fans or media here locally to possibly indicate that keeping the A's in Oakland is the direction they either are projecting or privately wanting to see happen.

Me and many other pro A's to SJ folks have probably hought all along that MLB sees the gold mine that is SJ/Silicon Valley, why wouldn't they want one of their 32 teams and for the league itself to reap the rewards of MLB located smack dab in the middle in one of the most lucrative areas in the country let alone the entire planet. Honestly IMO if MLB had it their way the A's would've been allowed to move years ago.

Sure the A's org and MLB as a whole may have to wait 2-3 more years than they initially wanted when the Fremont plan fell thru, which was to open a downtown SJ park sometime in the middle of 2010s in 2015 or 2016 but at this time 2018 is more likely the period a new SJ park would open.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 02/21/2013 8:33 AM

RE: Some news on A's and San Jose 


Personally, I think the league and most of the owners would like the A's to move to SJ. But, the Giants are the obstacle. They will not go out and publicly make the Giants the bad guys for PR reasons, which is why they keep creating reasons for stalling the decision. First, it was the do-nothing blue ribbon commission. Now, it's the invention of some fictitious process that will placate people for a while until they realize that they've been suckered, again.

If and when the Giants are willing to cede their territorial rights, the A's will move to SJ. That's the "process," same as it was from day one. That might happen tomorrow or it might never happen.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 02/21/2013 8:42 AM

Re: Some news on A's and San Jose 



voxhoo wrote: I will quote the article and give my interpretation:

This doesn't mean a move is imminent
translation: not happening soon.

The guidelines themselves are unknown, but they are believed to be "fluid."
translation: there are "guidelines" but, we aren't sharing the "guidelines" because the "guidelines" can change. OK, who are we fooling? We aren't going to tell you what the "guidelines" are because there really aren't any "guidelines." We're just tired of people asking us when is the decision coming and this is the latest incarnation of the "blue ribbon commission." We hope that like the "blue ribbon commission," you will be lulled into thinking something is actually happening and maybe you'll leave us alone for a few more years before you start to suspect that the "guidelines" are a sham just like the "blue ribbon commission" was a sham. Then at that time, we'll figure out something else to stall some more.

Sorry for my cynicism, but it has been well earned.
What I gathered from the article is that MLB is skeptical of the financial projections for San Jose, so they gave the A's guidance into how to convince them.  But the author has no idea what those guidelines say.

For the A's to move to San Jose, they need approval from 75% of the owners and from Selig.  Selig's decision will be based on what he thinks is best for MLB and on how pissed off the Giants will be.  It seems these guidelines only address the "best for MLB" part--which could go a long way toward convincing Selig and the owners--while leaving aside the issue of compensating the Giants.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 02/21/2013 8:51 AM

Re: Some news on A's and San Jose 



AthertonA wrote:
voxhoo wrote: I will quote the article and give my interpretation:

This doesn't mean a move is imminent
translation: not happening soon.

The guidelines themselves are unknown, but they are believed to be "fluid."
translation: there are "guidelines" but, we aren't sharing the "guidelines" because the "guidelines" can change. OK, who are we fooling? We aren't going to tell you what the "guidelines" are because there really aren't any "guidelines." We're just tired of people asking us when is the decision coming and this is the latest incarnation of the "blue ribbon commission." We hope that like the "blue ribbon commission," you will be lulled into thinking something is actually happening and maybe you'll leave us alone for a few more years before you start to suspect that the "guidelines" are a sham just like the "blue ribbon commission" was a sham. Then at that time, we'll figure out something else to stall some more.

Sorry for my cynicism, but it has been well earned.
What I gathered from the article is that MLB is skeptical of the financial projections for San Jose, so they gave the A's guidance into how to convince them.  But the author has no idea what those guidelines say.

For the A's to move to San Jose, they need approval from 75% of the owners and from Selig.  Selig's decision will be based on what he thinks is best for MLB and on how pissed off the Giants will be.  It seems these guidelines only address the "best for MLB" part--which could go a long way toward convincing Selig and the owners--while leaving aside the issue of compensating the Giants.
This puts the A's in the weird situation of almost having to prove the giants case.  If SJ is great financially for the A's then it shows how much it would hurt the giants.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 02/21/2013 10:42 AM

Re: Some news on A's and San Jose 


I find it hard to believe that some sort of "guidelines" haven't been in place since day one. I just don't see anything new here.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 02/21/2013 11:07 AM

Re: Some news on A's and San Jose 


Not really. It isn't a zero sum game. Having one team in both major population centers of the Bay Area should expand the total amount of dollars going to baseball.


---------------------------------------------
--- AsAsAs wrote:


AthertonA wrote:
voxhoo wrote: I will quote the article and give my interpretation:

This doesn't mean a move is imminent
translation: not happening soon.

The guidelines themselves are unknown, but they are believed to be "fluid."
translation: there are "guidelines" but, we aren't sharing the "guidelines" because the "guidelines" can change. OK, who are we fooling? We aren't going to tell you what the "guidelines" are because there really aren't any "guidelines." We're just tired of people asking us when is the decision coming and this is the latest incarnation of the "blue ribbon commission." We hope that like the "blue ribbon commission," you will be lulled into thinking something is actually happening and maybe you'll leave us alone for a few more years before you start to suspect that the "guidelines" are a sham just like the "blue ribbon commission" was a sham. Then at that time, we'll figure out something else to stall some more.

Sorry for my cynicism, but it has been well earned.
What I gathered from the article is that MLB is skeptical of the financial projections for San Jose, so they gave the A's guidance into how to convince them.  But the author has no idea what those guidelines say.

For the A's to move to San Jose, they need approval from 75% of the owners and from Selig.  Selig's decision will be based on what he thinks is best for MLB and on how pissed off the Giants will be.  It seems these guidelines only address the "best for MLB" part--which could go a long way toward convincing Selig and the owners--while leaving aside the issue of compensating the Giants.
This puts the A's in the weird situation of almost having to prove the giants case.  If SJ is great financially for the A's then it shows how much it would hurt the giants.

---------------------------------------------
Reply | Quote

Posted: 02/21/2013 12:13 PM

RE: Some news on A's and San Jose 


Yeah I think MLB has always wanted to see whether the A's have what it takes to build a park in SJ. If they can show the league they a lock of a plan the move will eventually happen. But the A's and MLB likely will have to wait it out until 2018 which is around the time AT&T Park debt will be taken care of and the compensation will be lower than if such a deal would've taken place over the past few years which is what the A's org and epsecially pro SJ A's fans have wanted.

Cisco Field will become a reality as Wolff with the support of the business community down in SJ who have as deep as pockets as you could get will get that venue built someway somehow.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 02/21/2013 3:10 PM

Re: Some news on A's and San Jose 



georgethev wrote: Not really. It isn't a zero sum game. Having one team in both major population centers of the Bay Area should expand the total amount of dollars going to baseball.


San Jose is not a major population "Center" geographically it is located at the bottom of the Bay and isn't really "center" to anything. 1 million plus people, yes but considering the square mileage could swallow up both Oakland and SF combined doesn't make an apples to apples comparison.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 02/21/2013 3:30 PM

Re: Some news on A's and San Jose 



linusalf1 wrote:
georgethev wrote: Not really. It isn't a zero sum game. Having one team in both major population centers of the Bay Area should expand the total amount of dollars going to baseball.


San Jose is not a major population "Center" geographically it is located at the bottom of the Bay and isn't really "center" to anything. 1 million plus people, yes but considering the square mileage could swallow up both Oakland and SF combined doesn't make an apples to apples comparison.
It isn't really the "center" to anything...except the economy of course.  And Santa Clara County has the largest population in the Bay Area.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 02/21/2013 4:03 PM

Re: Some news on A's and San Jose 



linusalf1 wrote:
georgethev wrote: Not really. It isn't a zero sum game. Having one team in both major population centers of the Bay Area should expand the total amount of dollars going to baseball.


San Jose is not a major population "Center" geographically it is located at the bottom of the Bay and isn't really "center" to anything. 1 million plus people, yes but considering the square mileage could swallow up both Oakland and SF combined doesn't make an apples to apples comparison.

That's not what "population center" means. Are you saying Los Angeles isn't a population center of California, because it's "at the bottom" of the state? A population center is a place where a great deal of population has centered, it doesn't refer to whether the location itself is central geographically. If you mapped an area by population, like a heat map, the hottest areas are the population centers.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to call the South Bay and greater San Francisco the two major population centers of the Bay Area. Whether you want to call San Jose a proxy for the South Bay is up to you, but I think many would.

Last edited 02/21/2013 4:05 PM by Minstrel

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 02/21/2013 4:07 PM

Re: Some news on A's and San Jose 



Oaktown2 wrote: 
It isn't really the "center" to anything...except the economy of course.  And Santa Clara County has the largest population in the Bay Area.

Let's leave the population argument out of it for the rest of our lives, ok?  Santa Clara County has ~1.8 million.  Alameda county has ~1.5 million.   WOW YOU

WIN FLAWLESS VICTORY.  Oh wait oops Contra Costa County has 1 million and San Mateo County has 700,000.

Any reasonable person would arrive at the conclusion that both areas have roughly the same amount (~2.5 million) - but that's only if we're being super generous to the South Bay as to not hurt its feelings.  Because if we took the South Bay's feelings out of the equation, 1) San Mateo County is the most staunch non-SF county Giants territory in the entire Bay area (oops for the South Bay), and 2) Solano and Marin counties, and hell, even Sonoma, Napa and Sacramento (which technically comes all the way down to Antioch) would be infinitely more likely to go to games at a new park in Oakland because the sad, stark fact of the matter is literally every human being in the entire Bay Area that DOESN'T live in Santa Clara County has exactly zero desire to ever set foot there.

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 02/21/2013 4:09 PM

Re: Some news on A's and San Jose 



Minstrel wrote: 

I think it's perfectly reasonable to call the South Bay and greater San Francisco the two major population centers of the Bay Area. Whether you want to call San Jose a proxy for the South Bay is up to you, but I think many would.

So San Fran gets to annex Alameda and Contra Costa Counties in your analysis.  Yeah. totes reasonable.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 02/21/2013 4:18 PM

Re: Some news on A's and San Jose 


Some of san meteo and alameda counties are closer to san jose than oak/sf.

Either way, there is a large population in the south bay close to zero teams and a large population farther north close to two teams. It's not unreasonable to think that more people overall will go to more games, etc, if more people were close to a MLB team. The pie could expand.


---------------------------------------------
--- sleepingcobra wrote:


Oaktown2 wrote: 
It isn't really the "center" to anything...except the economy of course.  And Santa Clara County has the largest population in the Bay Area.
Let's leave the population argument out of it for the rest of our lives, ok?  Santa Clara County has ~1.8 million.  Alameda county has ~1.5 million.   WOW YOU

WIN FLAWLESS VICTORY.  Oh wait oops Contra Costa County has 1 million and San Mateo County has 700,000.

Any reasonable person would arrive at the conclusion that both areas have roughly the same amount (~2.5 million) - but that's only if we're being super generous to the South Bay as to not hurt its feelings.  Because if we took the South Bay's feelings out of the equation, 1) San Mateo County is the most staunch non-SF county Giants territory in the entire Bay area (oops for the South Bay), and 2) Solano and Marin counties, and hell, even Sonoma, Napa and Sacramento (which technically comes all the way down to Antioch) would be infinitely more likely to go to games at a new park in Oakland because the sad, stark fact of the matter is literally every human being in the entire Bay Area that DOESN'T live in Santa Clara County has exactly zero desire to ever set foot there.



---------------------------------------------
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 27  Next >