When certain San Jose supporters privately told me several months ago about a possible November ballot measure for an A's ballpark, I was nearly incredulous. It seemed to be a rapid ramp-up period following a potentially hasty vetting process. Thankfully, cooler heads have prevailed as the City of San Jose is pushing back any public vote until March 2010 at the earliest. At this point a spring special election has to be a given, as neither the mayor nor city council members up for reelection in 2010 want any part of a ballpark vote distracting voters in November. There's talk of a special election that might be underwritten by the A's in March. Why not just use the upcoming primary election instead?
The vote will probably share the same buzz space as the 49ers' stadium vote in Santa Clara, though the vote will be restricted only to Santa Clara citizens and San Jose citizens for the A's ballpark vote. Despite this separation, there will be some measure of comparison between the two comparisons. And although Councilman Kevin Moore got a sneaky shot in at San Jose for "giving away land, something that Santa Clara doesn't do" during the marathon session on June 2, the two populaces are sophisticated enough to know that appraisal of both deals comes down to a lot more than placing a dollar value on some property.
Denis C. Theriault's article reveals that both the revised environmental impact report and economic impact report will be released on July 2. (Happy reading on the Fourth of July weekend, everyone!)
While it may seem that I am painting the situation as competitive, clearly there are many of the same supporters for both plans, including prominent county pols and SVLG. Even Wolff/Fisher have stated their support in hopes of working out a deal to make a new 49ers stadium the Quakes' new "large" venue. These numerous forces are in league, even though the two plans aren't exactly joined at the hip.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
50 comments:
Yeah SC, San Jose may be "giving land away" (are they?) for an A's ballpark, but they won't be spending one dime, like you, on actual stadium construction. A hypothetical land give away in SJ is equivelant to SC spending actual city/redevelopment money.
Which kind of leads me to the SJ ballpark vote. Simply...WHY A PUBLIC VOTE? San Jose won't be paying one dime toward's stadium construction; no general fund monies, no redevelopment/municipal bonds, no tax hikes. I can't see a vote based on SJ paying for surrounding infrastructure improvements, because those improvements will happen regardless if the ballpark happens or not (HSR, BART, etc). Scratching my head on that one.
The only way I see a vote happening is if 1) SJ really intends to give the land away, or at a reduced price or 2) The Convention Center Facilities District (Mello Roos) will include financing of the ballpark.
Hopefully the vote is non-binding, and hopefully is occurs in Nov2010; let the A's, SVLG and BBSJ handle the campaign while city council focuses on their's.
Lastly R.M., the last post comments were hilarious!
haha delay delay delay
Can't Wait to Vote!!!!!!!!!
I support bringing the A's to San Jose even though many of my neighbors disagree with me. To win this we need to put all the information and costs of the project in the ballot including the land.
I know the crazy opponents to the Santa Clara 49er Stadium Plan which I also support were claiming Santa Clara was giving away or selling land like the Earthquakes deal. It is good if Santa Clara and San Jose Council members speak up and tell the truth. Anything else would be sneaky.
Manny
Anon 1023,
This would have been a "delay" only if a public vote was set in stone for November of this year; that was clearly not the case. But go ahead, laugh all you want if it pleases you.
ML, should we still expect to hear a decision from the MLB committee by the AS break?
God it's gonna be a long time to wait if you wanna vote. This whole san jose thing is gonna be really drawn out and end up not happening, just like fremont. Accept it wont get as far as fremont went. Then we will be in the same situation, I predict a park will be done (wherever it may me) in about 15-20 years. I'm joking but really...this stadium process is taking f*@#ing forever!
Anon 1:28,
What land did SJ "give away" in the Earthquakes deal. Everything I've read and seen with that deal was that the Earthquakes owners paid full current market value for the land. San Jose hasn't spent any money on the project and won't be spending any on it.
Tony,
The public vote could be nothing more than an advisory vote. Personally, I'd like to see advisory votes on ANY stadium plans that come out. Both in Oaktown and San Jose.
One of the most important lessons of Fremont is that public opinion is important, and no one should assume the citizens of a city are behind a project based on polls, newspaper comments, etc. An advisory vote would have a lot more weight.
Though, the vote is putting the cart before the horse right now... in Oaktown, there needs to be a specific plan, or at least a site, to vote on. In San Jose there needs to be a completed "East Bay Study Group" report that indicates moving south is a good idea for the league. Absent either one of those things a vote is pretty useless.
The vote will most likely be too late to make a difference. The A's aren't going anywhere. Attendance numbers and all that other talk doesn't mean anything until after a new ballpark is built...then those numbers should be looked at or compared.
And all the San Jose partisans who think comparing the 9ers fans who aren't crying about the move to Santa Clara means anything to them are sadly mistaken. I know so many people who live and are from San Francisco who are die hard Niners fans who say as along as the team is still called the "San Francisco 49ers" they won't have a problem at all with the move. Some are season ticket holders and others just like watching the game on TV anyway. Obviously a completely different scenario for the A's moving to San Jose. Will you guys be OK with the A's moving to San Jose and still be called the OAKLAND A's??? I didn't think so. You can't compare fans wanting to go to 81 baseball games a year in their home city versus the football fans who really only need to go to 8-10 games a year.
And all those fans you all heard on TV in San Diego cheering for the A's this past weekend were mostly Oaklanders like myself. The die-hards who go to the games on Monday nights at the Coliseum despite the dated rundown ballpark and the not so appealing location. Trust me...I was there talking with a lot of the fans supporting the A's. That's why you heard the crowd chanting, "LETS GO OAKLAND!!" Not so much, "Lets go A's!!"
ASB is in keeping with the 60-90 day timeframe posed when the panel was created.
"The vote will most likely be too late to make a difference."
This is idiotic. MLB will say one of two things by the end of this summer: (a) "There are viable options for the A's in the East Bay, therefore we are not revisiting territorial rights;" or (b) "There are no viable options for the A's in the East Bay, therefore we are allowing the A's to explore the San Jose option. If it's (a), the vote will be moot, so timing is not an issue. If it's (b), the timing of the vote will be fully consistent with the amount of time it would take for the A's and San Jose to finalize a deal for the voters to actually approve. Either way, delaying the vote until next year will be a complete non-factor in whether the ballpark gets built in San Jose or not.
"Attendance numbers and all that other talk doesn't mean anything until after a new ballpark is built...then those numbers should be looked at or compared."
This is genius logic. "Let's build a ballpark in a location which has never supported Major League Baseball. Then afterward, we'll know if it was a dumb decision or not." Just ask the folks in Pittsburgh or Washington, DC how well this plan works.
Please!
Everyone just agree with anon 237, or don't respond to, so that ML doesn't shut down this posting.
Keep it clean and on topic. Thanks all!
Anon 2:37- What the heck universe are you living in?
First, attendance doesn't matter until a new stadium is built? Are you serious?
Where are all the fans in Oakland that want to go to game sin their home city? You can look it up in past posts here if you don't believe me, but there are 8% of A's fans (advanced ticket purchasers) who come form Oakland. 8% of 10,000... Boy it would be tough to give that up in order to move to San Jose...
At least have some sort of reality to back up your garbage when spouting garbage.
San Jose is taking a big risk here.
"This is genius logic. "Let's build a ballpark in a location which has never supported Major League Baseball. Then afterward, we'll know if it was a dumb decision or not." Just ask the folks in Pittsburgh or Washington, DC how well this plan works."
So, the A's should move out of the Bay area, then?
Anon 421,
Can you explain the big risk that SJ is taking? Thanks.
Jeepers,
No; the A's don't have to leave the Bay...they simply have to move to San Jose.
Jeffrey,
Good insight to my first post; appreciate the feedback. Perhaps I'm still suffering from PTSD from the 92 Giants ballpark vote being barely shot down. I know it's a different world/San Jose then back then and no tax hike would be required. We'll just have to wait and see.
Some tidbits I want to share before anon's force this comment section to shut down.
*87% of Silicon Valley company's polled recently by the SVLG stated that they didn't do any business with the SF Giants.
*Of the 13% that did do business with SF, 70% of those stated they would do business with BOTH Giants and A's in SJ.
Not sure if the %87 thing was reported; correct me if I'm wrong R.M.
*Also, Giants debt service on AT&T Park sunsets in 2017; 3 years after opening of Cisco Field. After 2017 Giants get a yearly "bonus" of $20 million. I'm sure they're creditors/investors can live with 3 years of being nicely compensated for an invasion of "Giants territory."
Knowing all this, it's plain as day that the Giants are hoping the A's will leave the Bay Area rather than stay in Oakland. They can survive financially with the A's in San Jose and they know it.
I think all A's fans, Oakland, East Bay, and South Bay, should be appalled by this.
LOL! People chanting "Let's go Oakland", the standard chant we've all been using for years regardless of where we live, now somehow means everyone in SD rooting for the A's was from Oakland. I suppose it was also an indictment of the potential move to SJ. The illogic from the Oakland-only crowd never ceases to amaze. Spock's brain would explode if he had to read their drivel.
Agree with Jeffrey on the vote--never quite sure if the vocal minority derailed the Fremont plan or if they represented a majority of the citizens of Fremont---I suspect a vocal minority--with a city council that was less than willing to take them on---a vote, in either SJ or Oakland will take care of this issue.
I would like to see the results (looked but cant find it on the web) of the Giants referendum for AT&T. I believe that it would be similiar to SJ--and if I am not mistaken, back in '95. nearly 80% of the voters approved the cheap land lease for AT&T to be built.
I could be way wrong but personally I feel that a similiar type of arrangement in SJ would pass easily---provided LW funds the stadium construction.
If a nice park is built in a nice area in Oakland...they will come. It's kinda retarded to bag Oakland as a choice city for a new park because of poor attendance. Bad location, and unatractive park come into play. If your gonna bag Oakland, put into play some good theories. If the A's can't stay in Oakland so be it. Right now the comparisons are the coliseum, to a new park in San Jose. Nobody is really camparing a new park in San Jose, to a new park in Oakland. Yes I know there hasn't been any news of possible Oakland sites besides that kron 4 report about a month ago. But think about it, if the A's could build in Oakland it could be great - they would stay in the east bay where a ton of the A's fan base is, they would stay in the city they have been at since 1968, ofcourse being a new park it would attract people who aren't necesarily baseball fans (like a lot who go to AT&T just for views and a nice park) and attendance would surely increase. I live in the east bay in the concord pleasant hill area, and there are alot of a's fans in this area of the bay. A's fans who don't feel like driving all the way to San Jose for a ball game, or taking bart to the end of the line. That's something that is overseen about Oakland, it is very centrally located. Yes I know San Jose would be good for the south bay fans, and silicon valley. The location where a San Jose park would be possible, is over 30 miles from the coliseum. So it's more than twice as far to travel if your from the area of Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, Martinez, Concord etc. Now I'm giving an example of one area of travel obviously, but it comes into play for attendance. The way gas and economy is nowadays, not as many people are gonna wanna make that trip to see a baseball game. I got the directions on google earth from where I live to the proposed San Jose location, it would be about 111 miles round trip...compared to the coliseum which is a 58 mile round trip, now im not saying I want the a's to stay at the coliseum, but in Oakland. Let me repeat myself by saying this is just an example from the area where I live. But it comes into play when thinking about how far away the park is from a lot of areas.
Anon 622,
Wowwwww! Let's be thankful that Lew Wolff and MLB won't make a decision based on someone's opinion from Concord.
There'll be tons of fans from Union City south, Livermore/Pleasanten, and the South Bay in general that will easily pack Cisco Field in San Jose on a regular basis.
Feel free to join us every now and then anon 622.
anon 6:22 - agree that a new park in Oakland would be great. I'm with Jeffrey in that I'd be happy in either, assuming it's in a good location.
The only problem with Oakland thus far is that no realistic, good, available site has been identified in all the years the team has been searching. My fear is that Uptown was the last, best chance to do something great in a good neighborhood. Every other site that has come up has problems of being not ideal locations (due to neighborhood issues or prohibitively high infrastructure costs) or uncooperative land owners.
That's Oakland's main problem. SJ's is obviously T-rights. Still I hold out hope that one of them will come to fruition. I'll be happy to continue to support the team in either spot, even though one of them is much closer to me (Oakland).
"It's kinda retarded to bag Oakland as a choice city for a new park because of poor attendance."
Past attendance is one key indicator of what future attendance will be in a new park. In general, attendance will always be higher with a new park than an old park. However, some towns are baseball towns and others are not. St. Louis is a baseball town - it had insanely high attendance even in an outmoded, multipurpose yard. Pittsburgh and Washington are not baseball towns. They had bad attendance in their old yards (including both the previous incarnations of Washington teams) and have bad attendance in their new yards. This despite the fact that PNC Park is arguably the nicest park in the bigs, and the Nationals ballpark is only two years old.
All indications are that Oakland is NOT a baseball town. The A's would be foolish to ignore this when siting their park.
"Bad location, and unatractive park come into play."
As far as location, all we heard from the Oakland-only posters while Fremont was in play was what a GREAT location the Coli site was because it is supposedly "centrally located" and because it has BART.
As far as "unattractive park," the Coli was actually state of the art compared to most of its peer facilities for the '60s, '70s, '80s, and early nineties and had lousy attendance for all but five years of that time, despite consistently good teams and four world championships. "Unattractive park" doesn't really become a compelling argumnet until 1995 when the Raiders came back and ruined the stadium for baseball, and other new parks proliferated in MLB making the Coli look worse by comparison. Sorry, that doesn't explain the A's attendance history.
"If your gonna bag Oakland, put into play some good theories."
OK, see above, it's not a baseball town. Also, it competes with a much stronger team in a gem of a park only 10 miles away, is the least affluent corner of the Bay Area, has virtually no corporate base (which drives modern MLB economics), and is already oversaturated with big league sports clubs (four in a ten mile radius, compared with only one team in a niche sport in the South Bay).
"Right now the comparisons are the coliseum, to a new park in San Jose. Nobody is really camparing a new park in San Jose, to a new park in Oakland."
You must have just started reading this blog this morning. ALL comparisons between the two cities have assumed a new yard in each. But there are many good reasons to believe a new yard will be more successful in the South Bay than the East Bay, including historic attendance in Oakland. (Which is why past and present Athetics and Giants ownership all view the South Bay as the more desirable location.)
"I live in the east bay in the concord pleasant hill area, and there are alot of a's fans in this area of the bay. A's fans who don't feel like driving all the way to San Jose for a ball game, or taking bart to the end of the line."
Great, so now you understand how we in the South Bay feel. But if the A's move south, there will still be a team close and convenient for you. If a region in going to have two ballclubs, it makes no sense whatsover to stack them right next to each other so some folks in the region have two convenient options and others have none.
"That's something that is overseen about Oakland, it is very centrally located."
Again, you must be new to this blog. The tin-foil hat people yammer on every day about Oakland's supposed "central location," it's the only argument they have. And it would be a credible argument if not for the fact that there already is another team serving that "central location."
"The location where a San Jose park would be possible, is over 30 miles from the coliseum. So it's more than twice as far to travel if your from the area of Walnut Creek, Pleasant Hill, Martinez, Concord etc."
And it will be much closer to San Jose, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Campbell, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Saratoga, Los Altos, Mountain View, Santa Cruz, and Monterey, which are much more likely to buy the club seats and suites which make the business go these days. And eventually it will be a one hour high speed rail ride from 1 million folks living in metro Fresno.
"Now I'm giving an example of one area of travel obviously, but it comes into play for attendance. The way gas and economy is nowadays, not as many people are gonna wanna make that trip to see a baseball game."
The same factors apply to people's willingness to travel north.
"I got the directions on google earth from where I live to the proposed San Jose location, it would be about 111 miles round trip...compared to the coliseum which is a 58 mile round trip,"
So go to a Giants game. Problem solved.
"now im not saying I want the a's to stay at the coliseum, but in Oakland. Let me repeat myself by saying this is just an example from the area where I live. But it comes into play when thinking about how far away the park is from a lot of areas."
Do you know how many times you used the word "I" in your post? Go back and count. This is not about you and your personal convenience, this is about the best location for the team to thrive.
ok if you guys didn't notice I was just giving an example of this area of the bay (which I said a couple times) cause I knew people would react to that. Im not saying keep the A's in Oakland for my sake only, but for the fact that it is centrally located. Also when you dissed that I said "unatractive park" saying it was state of the art in it's day...im talking about these days, not the past, to clarify. On another note how can you say "Oakland isn't a baseball town" but you think San Jose is? Please explain that? considering they don't have a major league team there, and it's Giants territory? I would like to see some facts or percentages for that. Cause you never really know until they move. And no I didn't just start reading this blog today, but I mostly see people just going for San Jose and bagging Oakland as it is now. Yeah and once again I was giving an example from one area of the bay, I'm not saying it should only be conveniant to me, I was giving an idea of how people might react in this area. But I guess I get shunned for voicing an opinion that is other than 100% for the San Jose move.
Anon 10:28 your blind if you think "the central location is the only argument they have". It's simple this whole thing. People are pulling to stay and to go. You are pulling to go, so you just wanna look at one single valid reason people are using, and say that's the only argument they got. Your not gonna like anything people say for Oaklands sake, because your hell bent on wanting them to leave. It's understandable, if you have the passion for them to move so be it. I have the passion for them to stay where they are. Everyone on here is pretty much hard headed so It's almost no use argueing until valid news comes out on the status of the situation. Fair enough.
Hey 1:56/ Diablo Valley Guy,
Thanks for stating your opinion.
I think "shunned" is the wrong term here. People are pretty vociferous on this site and they are refuting your argument. The problem here is that your argument is not new. The central location argument is old and can be refuted with simple facts that happen to support the San Jose backers. (a. two teams centrally located does not serve a distributed population so well, b. most attendees to baseball games come from a 21 mile radius so having teams further apart within the same economically powerful metro region allows the league to capitalize much more efficiently)
I am a fan of Oakland. I am a fan of San Jose. I am a fan of the A's. My love for each of these things is not interrelated. In other words, my love for San Jose will be love for San Jose, with or without the A's. The same for Oakland.
These whole circular arguments about central location, tradition, etc. are not good for the fan base as a whole and it would be good if we all stopped. The real comparison right now is between a phantom plan in Oakland (no site, no funding, no nada) and a half way complete plan in San Jose (a very good site, no specifics on funding). That debate can never be won by the Oakland only crowd using facts. A semi plan is better than nothing at all.
So until there is a plan in Oakland to support, maybe we could stop the tired arguments?
"Also when you dissed that I said "unatractive park" saying it was state of the art in it's day...im talking about these days, not the past, to clarify."
You were arguing that attendance is bad in Oakland because the park is unattractive. I pointed out that attendance in Oakland has ALWAYS been bad, even during the many years when the park was not considered unattractive. T
he fact is, attendance has been bad there for forty years despite the fact it was considered an attractive park for much of that time and despite multiple world championships. QED: Not a baseball town.
"On another note how can you say "Oakland isn't a baseball town" but you think San Jose is? Please explain that?"
Oakland has proven over forty years it is not a baseball town. San Jose is more of an unknown, but there are many reasons to believe a team would do better there:
1. It is the tech and job center of the Bay Area, and has more corporate base than San Francisco and the East Bay combined. Corporate base is what drives MLB these days. Even if Oakland had a good attendance history, it is highly questionable whether it can attract the corporate base to be competitive under current conditions.
2. San Jose is underserved for professional sports, with only one (niche) major league sports team. Oakland is oversaturated with professional sports, with four big league teams in a ten mile radius.
3. Oakland must compete with the Giants only ten miles away. San Jose is fifty miles from the Giants. As ML has posted previously, 21 miles is the critical radius for baseball attendance, presumably because half the games are played on weeknights.
4. San Jose does not have an MLB team, but has proven itself a great sports town with rabid support for two niche sports, the NHL and Arena Football. San Jose is an attendance leader in both those leagues (despite being a non-traditional hockey market, and despite the Sharks annual price hikes). San Jose has also well-supported Single-A baseball.
5. San Jose has better weather for Major League Baseball, considering most of the games are played at night.
6. San Jose will eventually be the transit hub for all of northern California. With high speed rail, San Jose will be an only an hour's ride or so from several MILLION people in the Central Valley who would not have convenient access to a park in Oakland.
7. San Jose has an inferiority complex and a hunger for the national recognition a major league team would bring the 10th largest city in the U.S. Think Oklahoma City for the level of excitement an MLB team would generate in San Jose. Frankly, after hosting three big league teams for so long, I think Oakland takes them for granted, considering the attendance struggles the A's and Raiders have experienced and the indifference the general population and politicians have shown toward efforts to keep the A's.
This whole thing is really retarded the A's wont move to san jose its Giants territory you cant just move the A's down there and expect the Giants to move there AAA team its more likely that the A's with either stay in Oakland or somewhere close by there
Ok this is really what you just said Jeffrey "The real comparison right now is between a phantom plan in Oakland (no site, no funding, no nada) and a half way complete plan in San Jose (a very good site, no specifics on funding)." Did you not see the news report last month about the revised proposal for the howard terminal plan? Guess not. There is gonna be another meeting about that plan to, and the mayors representative said they where impressed leaving the meeting, thats more than they have said about San Jose. So your saying that San Jose is way ahead of Oakland in trying to get a park...that's why your just going of Lew Wolf wanting to move there, and how he found a spot that could work. See you don't even look at what has happend in Oakland, cause you just like the San Jose idea better. There is still a committee for oakland, and don't forget that. It's amazing how delusional you are to say the A's have no plan...nothing has been done in San Jose besides the owner wanting to move there and a spot of land that could be purchased. Check your facts.
Anon 3:59pm, You're right. Oakland still has a committee.
However, a fact you left out about San Jose, is an EIR for the land has been done and will be revised/updated soon. That's a crucial step Oakland still has to take.
But both cities should be prepared since the A's new park location hinges on the MLB committee's report.
"the mayors representative said they where impressed leaving the meeting"
Boy, the mayor's mouthpiece said MLB was impressed with the presentation his group just gave. You've got me convinced.
Here are some statements with comparable credibility levels:
"My client is innocent, and I am confident he will be vindicated by the legal system."
"Hi, I'm from the Government, I'm here to help you.
"I promise I won't c-- in your mouth."
SFGiantsFan721--welcome back to earth--hope you had a good trip---just a few corrections---San Jose Giants are a single A team not a AAA team and although nothing official has come out on T-rights I would put it at greater than 50% odds that the Giants, who paid nothing for said rights, will be required to give them up for some level of compensation---
Let's face it: It's not 1968 anymore when San Jose was nothing but a suburb of San Francisco. San Jose a growing, vibrant, major city. Oakland is not.
While San Jose sells out Sharks games even during losing seasons, Oakland fails to sell out playoff and World Series games and is looking at a 10% ticket tax on the teams it still has.
Now I'd be very happy to go to a new A's stadium in Oakland. But it seems that Oakland is more focused on driving the A's out (see: ticket tax, stadium rennovations for football, dismissal of downtown site proposed by city manager) than doing anything to keep them.
The word "delusional" is getting as much abuse as a Brandon Marshall girlfriend or one of Michael Vick's former dogs. Mix it up a bit, people.
Anon 419
You guys played against our worst pitcher, and won Congrats. Seeing as i made no comments of us completely handing your asses to you, i dont see why you made a comment when 1 your 7 games under 500 theres no doubt that the Giants are a better team this year, just cuz you beat us once doesnt really mean anything. and 2 in those three games in SF there was no doubt that we had the upperhand we out pitched you out hit you two of our starters pitch two great complete games. so as you say " i hope you enjoyed your ride" you ever think you played a struggling pitcher and won? guess not you to comsummed bye this o lets move to san jose shit one nothing is in concrete and no one going to look at this blog and be like o man look at these guys talkin about how they want the team to move to san jose well looks like we have to do it. well thats wrong no ones going to look for your opinion on where they move your just going to have to man up and deal!
Anon 3:59- I am very up on the situation in both cities. Oakland has not made a formal proposal for any specific site. It is you are who misinformed.
The only news out of Oakland is that no one will specifically say what the sites are in public, though anonymously they have been told to be Howard Terminal (which if you were up on things, you would know that the site was ruled out nearly a decade ago), Oak to Ninth (ruled out nearly a decade ago) and the Coliseum Parking Lot.
I have been following this stadium hunt since it's inception. The HOK report, Robert Bobb, the Santa Clara quagmire of Steve Schott , Coliseum North, Fremont A, Fremont B.
There is currently, no official publicly released plan in Oakland. And the only person who has said MLB is impressed is a city staffer.
You should get your stuff straight before rambling about something you clearly haven't been following.
Ok well we will all have to wait to see what the latest news is. Right now lets hope the A's win tonight.
SFGiantsFan,
Was that English? I've seen it written better by pidgen/creole populations.
I don't think you really want to get into who's had the better team over the years or who's won more championships. Yeah, the Giants are finally having a better year then the A's...and? By the way, way to go way of topic rookie!
Jeffrey,
I think telling people to get their stuff straight before typing anything on this blog is futile. Let's just let them be with their comments and thoughts; I actually find some of these posts amusing/entertaining.
SF Giants Fan 721,
With the Giants having a much higher payroll than the A's for years, it's about time you guys had a better team. It must be nice to not have to worry about loosing/trading Lincecum or Cain (ala Haren, Harden, Blanton). Payroll/salary wise, we'll be there one day.
Tonights game is simply painful
The A's play so crappy tonight i seriously might just have to be come a Giants fan. Im tired of the crappy plays we make. The double plays are killing us we need to score when we have runners on!
you simply cant have 5 or 6 guys batting below .250 in the lineup every day. Thats why you're frustrated watching this team. Until Beane addresses that you have to be a masochist to watch this team. I dont watch, I just check the box scores. If the A's offense had played the way we expected coming in, they'd be well over .500.
Tony,
You are probably right. But it is tough to take when someone clearly knows little about the long and winding history and claims to read the blog (and comments?) often.
How many flippin' times have I said I don't care where a new stadium goes?
San Jose's site is a very good site and there has been a lot more done than "land ready for purchase," as those of us who have followed the process for years understand.
Oakland is recycling sites, something that was mentioned as a barrier by Lew Wolff (something Doug Boxer referred to as "challenges" in a nice bit of evasion) and something I agree with him on. If Oakland can't come up with a site better than the coliseum parking lot or Howard Terminal... I don't expect a stadium to be built there.
I like the debate about where the team should play. I like the differences of opinion. I don't mind the bias of Oakland Only folks and San Jose Only folks, as long as they are informed.
I hate someone calling me out when they don't know half of it.
Tonight, the best pitcher in baseball wiggled out of two jams. That's why he is the best pitcher in baseball.
Jeffrey,
Lincecum pisses me off because when I was in high school, I had the same frame as him (5'11", 175) but could only "bring it" at 84 mph on the mound. How the hell does this guy throw 96 mph heat?! Simply amazing!
My advice to our Athletics; next year when you face T.L., just close your eyes and swing at all of his first pitches.
What is with this Giants fan? He has no idea where his team's AAA team plays, gets corrected with a welcome back to earth line (ie: you are tripping if you don't know this simple fact), then goes off on some rant about how his mediocre team is so much better than our crappy team (congratulations!). I think the first statement is still apropos: why don't you catch the next bus back to reality? And like someone else said, 90% of it was illegible. If you're under age 9 or "special" then I understand. Anything else means you need serious help.
"No; the A's don't have to leave the Bay...they simply have to move to San Jose."
It's the same market. Moving them to San Jose is just putting lipstick on a pig.
Personally, I think Oakland and San Jose are equally capable of supporting a baseball team. They draw upon the exact same media market and fan base, and there are plenty of corporate dollars to go around in the Bay area. Moving to SJ isn't some necessity borne out of chasing attendance; once the shiny wears off, the attendance will be the same it ever was in Oakland if the team sucks (as it will be in San Francisco in the not-too-distant future).
Moving the A's to San Jose is like putting lipstick on a pig? How about moving the A's to San Jose is like eating crap instead of shit? In other words Jeeps, your statement didn't make any sense whatsoever.
What part didn't make sense? The part that explained they draw on the same media market (the Bay area), or the part about corporate dollars being able to travel on 880? Being located in Oakland didn't stop Oracle from buying the arena naming rights.
Post a Comment