02 April 2009

Wolff on short leash? IDLF as savior?

Two Oakland-related items for this afternoon. The Trib thinks someone needs to pinch hit for Mayor Dellums if the A's are to stay in town, and I agree. Dellums isn't exactly the most proactive guy out there, and the City needs some who can work the system and has some passion for the cause. Naturally, the Trib drops the name of Ignacio De La Fuente. I'm certain that De La Fuente can broker a deal. Can he broker a good deal? That's the question. It's not an indictment of IDLF, rather it's a matter of whether or not the resources will be there to see it through.

Fresh from the rumor mill (via Scott Sabatini's Examiner article) is Zennie Abraham's suggestion that Lew Wolff was almost fired when the Fremont plan failed, and that he's now on a short leash. I agree with the second part more than the first, as many of Wolff's wounds from the past several weeks have been entirely self-inflicted. Enough to fire him? I doubt it. What's certain is that Lew will have to tighten things up to get through the San Jose labyrinth. And if he can't, I'm pretty sure he's gone. He was brought in to get a ballpark deal done, and if it can't get done there's not much purpose in having him around, is there? College frat buddy friendships only go so far. In the rest of Zennie's post he mentions redevelopment and stimulus funds. Please Zennie - don't go there! That's not change we can believe in.

If you have 20 minutes or so, check out Zennie's recently posted video on the Coliseum ballpark plan. The plan itself had to be "dusted off" as it hasn't been touched in a few years, but the concepts haven't changed. You'll notice the name Chris De Benedetti, the former ANG reporter who's now on the Mayor's Stadium Task Force. I find that fascinating, as former Merc reporter Barry Witt, who worked the San Jose/Santa Clara stadium beat, now works for the City of San Jose.


Anonymous said...

Wasn't IDLF the mastermind behind the Raiders deal?

(As the City of Oakland trembles).

Dan said...

Question, how does one "fire" the part owner of the team? Did he not pay for his portion of the team? I suppose his co-owners could offer to buy him out, but they cannot fire him. Also consider the article you link to, they're under the mistaken impression that the majority owner of the A's is Don Fisher. It is not, rather JOHN Fisher is the co-owner of the A's, Don's son. Don has nothing to do with the A's ownership beyond being John's dad. Since this article can't even get basic information like that correct I find all of it to be HIGHLY suspect.

Marine Layer said...

No he wasn't. He is the last pol standing today from the deal.

Anonymous said...

By suggesting that IDLF lead the negotiations you imply that there are 2 willing partners to negotiate--after your last post that indicated a team in Oakland, even 20 years ago, didn't make sense, who in their right mind would want to build again in Oakland-

Firing Wolff won't make the current A's ownership group change their minds about wanting to stay in Oakland--these are business people and their read of the numbers is no different than ours---so we are back to...if San Jose is not successful than their will be no more Wolff, a change in ownership, and no more A's in the Bay Area---

Anonymous said...

It's about time they realize Lew Wolff is nothing but a money hungry old man.

This video is actually very interesting and promising. I watched it yesterday and I must say...if they can make it work, it could be a great visionary plan!!

No city in the entire country would have all 3 professional sports venues at one location!! Throw in some new restaurants, bars and maybe even a HUGE Bay Area sports retail store and I think we may be onto something real special here.

Bob Leste helped develop Stoneridge, Sunnvalley and Southland Mall so you know this guy knows what he's talking about. It sounds like he was also apart of some major retail development in Downtown Chicago as well as Boston.

Dan said...

Anon 4:38, it's actually even simpler than that, you dump Wolff and any hope of going to SJ dies. Wolff is the key among the current A's owners to SJ. He's been the one working with the city council in SJ for over 30 years. He's the one with all the connections. That's why this idea that they'd "fire" him is just a bunch of idle blogger BS.

Anonymous said...

ML--I believe that this must of been an April fool's joke---if not--it should have been

Anonymous said...

Hilarious that the best hope for Oakland is a bigger real estate development like that much-derided Fremont plan, which was modeled after the soulless Santana Row. Let's see the criticism now.

Georob said...

Well, a few weeks ago I said that Wolff might be upset with Selig and that one of the "options" he was considering might be stepping aside. However, you we're pretty certain that wasn't the case because Wolff "loves being an owner"

Will you now admit that we're in uncharted waters and that no one truly knows what's going to happen?

...including our friends in the "tenthlargestcityintheunitedstates"?

Marine Layer said...

Who are you calling out, Rob?

Being fired and taking an option to step aside are very different.

SexFlavoredPez said...

"No city in the entire country would have all 3 professional sports venues at one location!!"

You're forgetting Philadelphia, which has had 4 major sports teams (Eagles, Phillies, Flyers, 76ers) playing in the same location down by the river for a few years now. I'm sorry, no matter how you dress up an area you simply cannot remove the unsavory element, and subsequent lack of appeal, of this location (see Fruitvale for prime example).

Tony D. said...

Your mistake was believing this April Fools nonsense from the Examiner (of all people). Rumor Mill for the Examiner usually equates to complete B.S.! So the rest of your post has no premise...sorry.

SJ/SV Biz Journal qouted Mr. Wolff as stating if the A's were allowed to relocate to SJ that they (A's) would have to buy the SJ Giants also. Is this correct? Or did the Biz Journal misquote Wolff? I'd never heard that angle.

Anonymous said...

No, those of us in or near the Tenth Largest City have a pretty good idea what's going to happen.

This is all unfolding pretty much as I predicted several years ago (except I thought the Fremont plan would most likely fly). Fremont first, as path of least resistance to Silicon Valley. If that got too hard, might as well go for the gold and try to get all the way to downtown SJ, having made a demonstrable good faith effort to build in the East Bay.

(All this talk of "firing" Mr. Wolff makes me laugh. If the A's get to Diridon, that $20 million "lost" in Fremont will be some of the best money Mr. Fisher ever spent. Besides, there is no true "loss" until the land is sold; that could still work out OK for them).

Here's another prediction: If San Jose doesn't work out for whatever reason, Pacific Commons comes back to life with modifications to placate the big box stores. I know, ML has said reconfiguring the site in a way that would do this would complicate the EIR and other issues. Still, that would seem the best option for the A's at that point.

Bonus prediction: If the A's do end up in Fremont, they will be called either the San Jose A's or the California A's.

Anonymous said...

This video is essentially hyping factors that are already in play and have proven ineffective. The location is already as "central" as in will be. The same three teams already play together. The only thing different is a mall. Not only that, but it's apparently the driving force here, not the stadium. Isn't that what people constantly bash Wolff for? Not having baseball as the #1 priority? Odd how all that becomes a good thing when it's in Oakland. Maybe Fuddrucker's will strengthen the "fabric of the community."

Anonymous said...

The individual Philly venues are nice, but the complex overall is completely lacking in charm. Why anyone would think building multiple venues together is an asset is a mystery. All it does is make traffic a nightmare during concurrent events. Downtown ballparks are the way to go.

Georob said...

"Being fired and taking an option to step aside are very different"

Oh come on, it happens all the time in the professional world. Someone is given the courtesy of submitting their resignation as opposed to being terminated.

Like I said back then, somethings up.

Marine Layer said...

Rob, if you want to latch onto a rumor so that you can feel good about your hunch, bully for you.

I prefer to observe the freight train that is headed to San Jose.

Anonymous said...

Georob--April Fools is what was up---the only way that Wolff steps aside is if SJ fails for whatever reason--and he steps aside only because the team will be sold by the current ownership group---isn't great to plant rumors on April Fools day and see how far they go---

What is really up is MLB is getting ready to open the door to SJ---thus you have the Giants trying to exert their brand down in SJ right now by buying a portion of the SJ Giants---hoping to increase their compensation--

Giants can still win in the end---even if they have to give up their T-rights--buy working to sabatoge SJ efforts and having the A's sold to an ownership group that moves them in a heart beat...cuz there ain't no one who is willing to build a ballpark in Oakland...with private money.

Anonymous said...

So I guess after all the, "I don't care where it's built," you obviously don't care for a stadium to be built in Oakland ML.

I thought you were the only one on this blog who was impartial with either city...but I guess I was wrong???

When is anyone...including you ML gonna learn that no matter what the media chooses to write, no one can say where the A's will end up. For the last 4 years, nothing...and I mean absolutely nothing that was supposed to happen regarding the A's ballpark has actually happened. Well besides closing the third deck to drive away even more fans.

First it was Oakland...nothing, and then it was Fremont...nothing, and finally don't even get me started on how many times pursuing the South Bay has been UNSUCCESSFUL.

Why is it that all the San Jose partisans can say, Oakland couldn't make it happen...but can't except the fact that it's the same deal with the South Bay??

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:59--open up T-rights to SJ and lets see if it can happen--my bet is it will---just need to let the process for the blue ribbon committee to work through-

Can anyone predict the outcome---of course not--but logical folks can develop reasonable conclusions as to what is occuring and as ML said--freight train is definetely pushing towards SJ--

Anonymous said...

Seriously ML,

I also get that your blog is pretty much dominated by pro San Jose folks, but I do recall a time when you seemed very neutral to where it was built. You even said not too long ago that neither city has done much to really get all excited about besides a lot of talk. But now it's apparent that you also being a San Jose resident has gotten you all caught up in the noise your South Bay counterparts have been making.

I also agree that no one has any idea what's going to happen or where the A's will end up. Everyday it seems like something new that makes the media appear to be a bunch of BS and everyone's speculation has done nothing but put two great cities against one another.

What's really sad is that where ever the A's eventually end up, if it's still in the Bay Area, will most definitely put the two cities against each other for a very long time.

Marine Layer said...

You caught me. It's quite obvious that I've been SECRETLY on the Wolff/Fisher payroll all this time while the dastardly plan has played out. Oh god, what will you think of me??? If you perceive bias, I can't help it. That's a YP, not a MP.

This blog follows the news and comments on it. I don't know if you've noticed, but 80% of the news the past two months has been about San Jose. The other 20% has been about Oakland. I can choose to ignore that, but that would show clear bias and would go against the mission of this very blog. I go where the action is, like it or not.

The Oakland presentation is only the first step of an actual plan. It doesn't go into how it will be paid for. For now, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt until the details come through. If there's one thing I've learned the last four years, it's that the devil is truly in the details.

Anonymous said...


Jesse said...

Better make San Jose work Wolffie or its back to the minors. Told ya.

Jesse said...

Wolff and the A's will be gone if something doesnt get done. It's sad but true, I'm rooting for Wolff. I really am.

Anonymous said...

Are you serious ML?? This is your blog and you really feel like the news has been 80% San Jose and about 20% Oakland the past few months regarding the new ballpark??

I've been following obsessively for quite some time now and I'll be the first to say that city of Oakland has been coming up a lot more than 20% whether you agree or not.

As far as I'm concerned if anything, San Jose news has been the same old story that EVERYONE already knew. Just a lot of assuming going on. Seriously, what's the most recent story you came across that was "breaking new??"

It sounds like to me most of the "new" news that's been going on lately has been much more involving Oakland than San Jose.

Anonymous said...

really marine? only 20% for oakland for the past couple of months regarding the ballpark issue?? do you know something regarding san jose that we're all unaware of...or are you really bias because you live, work, and are surrounded by san jose partisans on your blog??

you do a really great job keeping on top of everything surrounding the new ballpark, but i am also beginning to wonder if you really are being swayed?

Marine Layer said...

Okay, let's recount what news has been made in both cities. Not columns from columnists, since those are just commentary. Actual news.

Oakland -
1 letter from Dellums to Selig
1 letter from Boxer to Selig
1 retort from Wolff to Dellums
1 revived ballpark development plan
1 planned meeting between Wolff & Dellums

San Jose -
1 date set to officially kick off ballpark pursuit
Multiple discussions reported between Wolff and Reed
2 Wolff press conferences in SJ & SF
2 city council sessions
Multiple updates on land acquisition
1 NIMBY article
1 proclamation from Wolff about SJ
Multiple articles about Giants reaffirming T-rights

The sad part is that on the blog, much of the empty space about Oakland has been filled in by me. Let's see:
2 posts on how to refurb Coliseum
1 post on Perata
2 articles about the Haas era

By no means do I think San Jose is a foregone conclusion. When it gets to the point that the national media has picked up the trail to San Jose, there's something to it.

Anonymous said...


I sent you a link with the video to post yesterday afternoon regarding the Oakland Committee. But you didn't bother to put it up until late today. I was wondering why you didn't want to post it to share? I know that it takes you a little time to write and put together a well thought out thread, but it seems like you're very intelligent enough to knock them out pretty quick. So I ask why you wanted to wait to put it up after you had already posted a few new threads since??

Anonymous said...

Again ML, a lot of your San Jose info is stuff that most of us if not all of us already expected or knew.

"Multiple discussions reported between Wolff and Reed" - They have both even stated that there's no surprise there simply due to the fact that Lew Wolff already has been doing business with the city for quite some time now.

"2 Wolff press conferences in SJ & SF" - Again, what was discussed in those press conferences that the people didn't already know??

"2 city council sessions" - Both were already expected, and to basically discuss how to lure the A's down south. Again something we've all been very aware of.

"1 proclamation from Wolff about SJ
Multiple articles about Giants reaffirming T-rights" - Those two must have been the biggest surprise of them all, right??

You definitely seem bias in my opinion. Maybe not all the time...but lately, yes.

Marine Layer said...

Anon 8:45 - Was that via e-mail or a comment here? I only caught wind of it today after reading the blog.

8:37 - News is news, whether you expected or were surprised by it or not.

Funny thing, someone tried to start an "alternative" blog that had "less bias" or whatever you want to call it. I even linked to it in the sidebar once he got it up. That blog hasn't been updated in 6 weeks, so I removed the link. If you'd like to try your hand at it, I'll link to your blog. Nothing wrong with having different perspectives.

I look at it this way. If I'm getting a reasonable amount of criticism from both San Jose and Oakland partisans, I figure I'm doing a decent job. That's exactly what I'm getting right now.

Anonymous said...

I sent it through the comments.

Anonymous said...


The economics favor San Jose. That's how we know it's going to happen. Or the team will go back to Fremont. Or leave the area. Simple as that.

You can say, "If San Jose were so great, how come it hasn't happened yet." In saying this, you ignore twenty years and five separate attempts by both local MLB teams to move here. You ignore the reasons why those moves didn't happen or at least haven't happened yet. (Requests for public funds by the Giants; residual MLB political issues related to T-rights for the A's). You ignore how difficult it is to get any major projects done in California, and how long it takes.

You can say, "MLB already taps into the South Bay." In saying this, you ignore the fairly obvious and logical point that in a sport where more than half the games are played on weeknights, placing two teams ninety minutes away from the South Bay will draw significantly fewer people from that region than putting a park twenty minutes away. And that, since the distance is a push, most who go to games will choose the more glamorous team with the longer local history.

You can ignore the relative affluence of the South Bay. You can ignore the corporate base.

The powers that be are not ignoring these factors. Not Macgowan. Not Neukom. Not Schott. Not Wolff. Selig was hoping Fremont would get him the benefit of Silicon Valley without the political hassles, but that didn't happen. He's not ignoring it either. These people know their business a bit better than the wild-eyed, emotional posters on this board.

Oakland will put forward some proposals. MLB will find reasons to shoot them down. The Oakland-only crowd will be on this blog shrieking "conspiracy" and claiming the stated reasons are a pretext. They'll most likely be right on the latter point. (Not that this constitutes a conspiracy, unless you define conspiracy as "desire not to lose hundreds of millions of dollars of your own money.")

It might be different if Oakland were offering a publicly financed park. Obviously, they won't be. No businessman in his right mind is going to pour a half billion dollars of his own money into a market that has ignored the team for forty years, has no corporate base, and sits ten miles away from one of the strongest teams in one of the best buildings in MLB. He will, reasonably, expect a solid chance of a return on his investment. It's one thing to be the Pittsburgh Pirates sitting in a park the taxpayers built. It's another thing entirely to be the Pittsburgh Pirates sitting in a ballpark you spent $500 million of your own money to build.

The Oakland-only crowd who are saying "it's 50/50, no one knows what's going to happen" are in denial.

Anonymous said...

You people accusing ML of bias can't tell the difference between "having a rooting interest" and "handicapping a future event."

Marine Layer said...

Sorry 8:45/9:17, I looked through my e-mail notifications and didn't see it in there. Usually the system's bulletproof. I definitely would've posted it once I saw it.

Anonymous said...

No worries.

Anonymous said...

jesus christ!!!! ML spends hours, im sure, updating this blog,what, 2-3 times a day and people have the balls to come here and start bitching???HELLO!!!!its FREE information in one location people!!!! if you want to spend hours doing your own research and posting it up, then by all means, knock yourself out. remember the "oakland challenge"? how did that work out for you oakland only people?? not so easy was it??ML had to come and bail you guys ML said, if you dont like it, start your own blog...see if its as easy as you think...good luck with that..

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Marine Layer said...

Namecalling is not cool, guys.

Jeffrey said...

The video is an exercise in groupthink.

I am in favor of a ballpark in Oakland, as well as one in San Jose. Either is fine by me... but this group of people is not being very realistic.

Anonymous said...

hey sexflavor,

i don't think philadelphia has them as close in proximity as the coliseum and the oracle, do they?? either way i like the concept and i think it could totally work with the right brains and will to get it done. i especially like the idea of tearing down the bart bridge and making it about 10x wider to create a concourse when exiting the station.

Anonymous said...

Philly has all their parks sharing parking, just like the Coli complex.

Anonymous said...

What's interesting about the Oakland dilema is that 15 years ago they ruined the Colisieum for the return of the Raiders--now with an annual debt payment of $20M for this foresight, they want to return the Colisieum to a baseball stadium and build a new stadium for the Raiders in the parking lot-
Let's see---its only about $1.5B for this pipe dream while still paying $20M per year for the last pipe dream-

Also find it interesting that Oracle Arena hosts under 100 events per year while the HP Pavillion has more than 200---something is wrong with this picture--like the location--

Jeffrey said...

For those interested in the view this shows a good perspective on the Philadelphia stadium locale

Georob said...

With all due respect(and apologies to the late Frank Loesser), I see your freight train to San Jose as more of a slow boat... that could very well stop in China along the way(depending on what cheap pitching prospects Billy Beane could find there)

Anonymous said...

I'm not saying it'll be fast or easy, just that it will ultimately happen.

Anonymous said...

that's funny, i heard the same thing from a lot of my friends from the south bay years ago...which ultimately never happened.

to be quite honest, i've lived in san jose for a couple of years myself and almost everyone i've talked to about the a's have said they don't mind coming to oakland to see a game. i've heard getting to coliseum is much easier to get to than at&t with the fact that there is ample parking, tailgating and being pretty much either right off the freeway or right off the BART. a lot of them feel that since san jose is giants territory, they like seeing real battle of the bay rivalry between oakland and sf. no need to create another rivalry between san jose and sf when you guys already have the san jose giants.

i'm telling all of you. with lew on such a "short leash" now, i doubt he'll want to wait out all the legal issues that will surely come with getting the t-rights removed. he's gonna want to get the ballpark built as soon as possible without looking more like an ass than he already has. i seriously doubt he has the time to wait out the whole san jose battle. this will not be as easy as selig waving a magic wand to make it all go away. giants will fight it out till the end which will take even more time.

and with the way the city of oakland is really trying to come up with a plan that will make everyone happy including the giants, i think they will have a better chance at keeping the team then moving to the south bay.

Jeffrey said...

So let's see... your friends in San Jose say they will come to Oakland but the attendance figures show.... hmmmm, the A's haven't outdrawn the Giants since before AT&T was built.

Legal issues around territorial rights.... MLB constitution says that Commissioner is sole arbiter of disagreements between clubs, there will be now "legal issues." The question is already answered and protected by an Anti Trust agreement.

There will be a simple answer to the A's move whether it is to a different yard in Oakland or San Jose... "How is it financed?" That was sort of glossed over in the groupthink video when the developer said "It's almost a no brainer if you find a way to fund this."

jeepers said...

If Ignacio de la Fuente is really leading the charge, God help those of us interested in seeing the team remain in Oakland. He's the epitome of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:15,

Your post is absurd and disingenous.

"i've lived in san jose for a couple of years myself and almost everyone i've talked to about the a's have said they don't mind coming to oakland to see a game."

Um, you do understand why this would be a non-scientific and self-selecting sampling with no statistical validity whatsoever, right? Are you the guy who keeps posting "most of the comments at SFGate agree with me" as evidence of the weight of public opinion?

In any event, I don't believe this for a second, certainly as pertains to weeknight games. Your cronies at OAFC don't it either: every time the subject of a ballpark in San Jose comes up, they start squawking "It's horribly inconvenient! You'll lose all the East Bay fan base!" (such as it is). While in the OAFC-bizarro universe it is apparently twice as far from Oakland to San Jose as it is from San Jose to Oakland, for those of us who live in the real world it is actually the same distance.

"i've heard getting to coliseum is much easier to get to than at&t"

"I've heard" implies the obvious: You've never done it yourself. I've done both trips myself many times and it is way easier to get to AT&T, especially on a weeknight.

"with the fact that there is ample parking,"

As there is at AT&T, so much so that they have started building on the excess.


Tailgating at AT&T, check. (Seriously, have you never been there? You ought to do some research before posting).

"and being pretty much either right off the freeway"

As AT&T is right off 280 (which has far less traffic than 880. And close to 101, giving South Bay-ers a second option.

"or right off the BART"

Um, BART doesn't go from the South Bay to the Coliseum, as you OAFCers constantly point out.

"a lot of them feel that since san jose is giants territory, they like seeing real battle of the bay rivalry between oakland and sf."

What, do you work in the Giants marketing department? What a load of crap. Yeah, those of us down here have such an inferiority complex, we'd rather see the Giants take on Oakland rather than our own team.

"no need to create another rivalry between san jose and sf when you guys already have the san jose giants."

This makes so little sense on any level, I'm at a loss how to respond.

"i'm telling all of you. with lew on such a "short leash" now, i doubt he'll want to wait out all the legal issues that will surely come with getting the t-rights removed."

There are no legal issues, there are only political MLB issues.

"If he's gonna want to get the ballpark built as soon as possible without looking more like an ass than he already has. i seriously doubt he has the time to wait out the whole san jose battle."

There is no reason to believe it will take longer to get something done in SJ than in Oakland, even with the T-rights issue. They're going to have a lot easier time getting financing for a park in San Jose, due to the higher return on the project.

"this will not be as easy as selig waving a magic wand to make it all go away. giants will fight it out till the end which will take even more time."

It's not really going to take any time. It's as simple as: Can San Jose deliver enough confidence on the site and the financing in the next few months to get Selig to put it to a vote? The vote itself will take no time at all.

"and with the way the city of oakland is really trying to come up with a plan that will make everyone happy"

Oh yeah, I saw the video, one big happiness meeting. No resolution to the problems that doomed that same plan the first time though, namely: (a) The Raiders and Warriors not wanting to lose all their parking for several years; and (b) a complete lack of funding for the concept.

Anonymous said...

Wow Anon must be a GIANTS fan??? Why do you even care if the Giants have a nicer ballpark than the A's?? If you feel that strongly about it...get off this site and go start a "Bring the Giants to San Jose."

Anonymous said...

I am far from a Giants fan, but I've been to AT&T park many times. Often to see the A's, and often just because it offers a better experience than the Coli and/or because friends of mine were going. I wish the A's a comparable park in the Bay Area, and believe that will only happen in San Jose (or possibly Fremont).

Mainly, my 3:01 post reflects impatience with the ill-informed, ill-reasoned, and disingenous arguments we constantly hear from the Oakland-only side. If you're going to come around here saying ridiculous things like: (a) "It's easier to get to the Coli than AT&T Park from San Jose," (b) "All my South Bay friends would rather watch the Giants play Oakland than a San Jose team," (c) the East Bay has a great track record of supporting the A's," (d) "San Jose should be happy with having a Single-A team," or (d) "Oakland is an economically viable site for MLB under modern day circumstances," expect to get called on them.

Anonymous said...

Oh OK, so you're far from being a Giants fan, but you sure as hell love their stadium. I have not once heard anything along the lines that your loyalty is to the A's. You must really be one of the "fair weather" San Jose fans. You just go to watch the Giants at AT&T and drink wine and eat cheese??

Zennie Abraham said...

Dan's wrong. Don Fisher has a great deal to do with the A's and the person I talked to -- twice. In fact, Dan contradicts himself by correctly stating that Don is John's father. Don endorsed the plan long ago -- we talked about it at his Project Red party at Yerba Buena Center.

Dan said...

Zennie, how do I contradict myself? Don is John's father, this is true. But Don is not the majority owner of the A's, John is. Just because you own your car doesn't mean your father has anything to do with it. Same thing here. Don is not a member of the A's ownership. And if your source is saying otherwise I'd question the validity of what your source is saying.

gojohn10 said...


I would offer one suggestion. Edit the video so one doesn't have to wait 22 minutes to get to the plan. Not many people have that kind of patience.

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:51,

I do love the Giants ballpark, as do virtually all objective baseball fans. It is the gold standard. It has been rated at or near the top of all MLB parks by every organization that has conducted such ratings, including ESPN. It is what all true A's fans want for our team.

I have noted my loyalty to the A's many times on this blog. However, I don't feel the need to state this in every single post because it is not relevant to the topic at hand. Nearly everyone posting on this site is an A's fan.

An East Bay fan calling San Jose fans "fair weather" - that's rich. Go re-read Gojohn's statistical study demonstrating the A's need about 100 wins to even get to average attendance. Then after 40 years of ignoring championship caliber teams, you guys come around this blog whining that if the A's move to Fremont you'll abandon the team. Boy, we're sure ashamed we can't measure up to the standard set by you stalwart East Bay fans.

jeepers said...

"If you're going to come around here saying ridiculous things like..."Oakland is an economically viable site for MLB under modern day circumstances," expect to get called on them."

I think my irony meter just exploded.