tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11432525.post8183421792963362568..comments2023-10-16T03:27:54.609-07:00Comments on new A's ballpark: Sorry Oakland, not interestedMarine Layerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13515986023439927575noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11432525.post-54559440718023200532009-03-17T12:03:00.000-07:002009-03-17T12:03:00.000-07:00This "the Giants had crappy attendance for de...This "the Giants had crappy attendance for decades" argument is even more of a sideshow than most of the others, but what the hell, I'll bite. <BR/><BR/>First of all, I'll point out that you're once again cherry picking the data by limiting your argument to the Haas years. <BR/><BR/>Second, the Giants circumstances were very different than the A's during those years. There were a number of factors working against the Giants attendance in those days, and a lot more reason for optimism in the Giants upside with a new yard in SF than there is for a new yard in Oakland today. Specifically:<BR/><BR/>- Facility. Pre-AT&T park, the A's had a dramatically superior facility to the Giants. Candlestick was ugly, freezing cold, windy, had lousy sightlines, was in a lousy neighborhood, and offered no views of anything to compensate(such as the Oakland hills). Even after Mt. Davis was built, the Coli was way better than the stick.<BR/>- Location. As I have written before, the Giants move to China Basin has neutralized any advantage the A's might derive from location. But in the Candlestick days, this was a big deal. Access to Candlestick was horrible; public transit very limited. Getting to the park was a pain even living on the Peninsula, and it was terrible from everywhere else.<BR/>- Success. The A's won four Championships in their first 25 years in Oakland; the Giants have won nothing in 50. The fact that attendance for the two teams were even comparable tells you everything you need to know.<BR/>- TV Ratings. The Giants have ALWAYS had substantially greater support throughout the Bay Area, even though they didn't deserve it. As A's fans, I assume we can all agree this is irritating, but it's the truth. <BR/><BR/>It is hardly surprising that MLB would be more concerned regarding the Giants future in the Bay Area than the A's.<BR/><BR/>But all of the foregoing considerations are secondary. The single biggest reason it was clear a downtown SF ballpark would succeed and it seems likely a new downtown Oakland ballpark would struggle if built today is that the Giants acted first. They knew going in to China Basin that they were not going to be competing with a comparable facility near by. <BR/><BR/>As the team with the weaker fanbase, it makes no sense for the A's to move ten miles from AT&T Park and try to compete for premium ticket buyers. They will lose that competition.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, it makes a great deal of sense for them to move to San Jose and try to compete based on geography. In San Jose, they will draw in a lot of new fans who currently attend few baseball games. <BR/><BR/>The same considerations would have applied if the A's had somehow built a downtown Oakland ballpark before AT&T Park. The Giants would have been in a stronger position to contemplate direct geographic competition with the A's in that case, as they were and still are the stronger franchise in terms of regional fan support. Even so, this kind of direct competition might well have pushed them to consider their own move south rather than building at China Basin.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11432525.post-15901426208149887362009-03-16T09:19:00.000-07:002009-03-16T09:19:00.000-07:00Anon said: "The mere fact that corporations in the...Anon said: "The mere fact that corporations in the South Bay are big supporters of the San Francisco Giants who are 40 miles north, should tell you that Oakland is also within reach. As a matter of fact, the naming rights to the Oakland Arena were bought by Oracle."<BR/><BR/>Oracle isn't in the South Bay, they're in Redwood City, near the San Mateo bridge.<BR/><BR/>Naming rights are probably more about advertising than team support, especially since the arena is used for a lot more than basketball.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11432525.post-88072841321945595692009-03-16T08:27:00.000-07:002009-03-16T08:27:00.000-07:00You Oakland only fans consistently talk out of bot...You Oakland only fans consistently talk out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand, you argue that Santa Clara County and the Peninsula are Giants country, that the Giants are the glamour team, and therefore that the A's will never be able to draw support from the South Bay even if they move there. Then on the other hand, you argue that if the A's build a stadium in downtown Oakland, suddenly Silicon Valley will embrace the team. On the one hand, you argue that even a move to Fremont is disastrously inconvenient and will lose the existing East Bay fan base (such as it is), yet those of us in the South Bay will so overcome by excitement by a new downtown Oakland yard that we'll suddenly start attending in droves.<BR/><BR/>Sorry, both premises are absurd. If the A's were to build an arena in downtown Oakland, San Francisco would remain the glamour team, in the glamour location, with the historic fan base. AT&T Park is also quite a bit easier to reach from the South Bay on a weeknight than downtown Oakland, which you'd know if you lived down here. A downtown Oakland ballpark does absolutely nothing to develop a new fan base among folks currently not going to many games and gives the existing fan base no reason to switch.<BR/><BR/>This "the fact the arena finally found a naming rights sponsor proves corporations will buy premium seating in Oakland" is even more absurd. Buying naming rights doesn't require any executive to actually fight his way up the Nimitz to visit the building, it's like buying a billboard. Any arena, regardless of its location, will be mentioned in the paper and on TV at least 162 games per year. If anything, the difficulty the arena had finding a sponsor and the fact that the Coliseum currently does not have one should tell you how desirable the corporate world views the market.<BR/><BR/>As ML has posted before, for MLB 22 miles is the magic radius for fan base. Think about it: half or more MLB games are on weeknights. If the A's build a new yard in downtown Oakland, practically right next to the Giants ballpark, they'll continue to go head to head for fans in the immediate vicinity (and the A's will continue to lose) while most South Bay fans will continue to remain on their sofas most weeknights. On the other hand, if the team comes to San Jose, they will tap into a previously untapped market with lots of disposable income and previously limited access to professional sports.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11432525.post-78261465819804900842009-03-15T21:03:00.000-07:002009-03-15T21:03:00.000-07:00Bartleby, The mere fact that corporations in the ...Bartleby, The mere fact that corporations in the South Bay are big supporters of the San Francisco Giants who are 40 miles north, should tell you that Oakland is also within reach. As a matter of fact, the naming rights to the Oakland Arena were bought by Oracle.<BR/><BR/>Forty miles is not an issue for these corporations. They are attracted to what is fashionable and hip at a certain time in the Bay Area. If Oakland were to build a beautiful waterfront ballpark and proceeded to have a winning team with exciting players like they had during the Walter Haas era, the corporations, along with other bandwagon fans from all over the Bay Area, would be right there with checkbook in hand. And as much as you want to trivialize Oakland's central location to the Bay Area's 7 million residents, along with Oakland's unmatched public transportation to the ballpark, it provides an incredible asset to someone who would know how to capitalize on these advantages. Lew Wolff has proven time and time again, that he can't, or doesn't know how to capitalize on this advantage. Of course, if you bought a team with the express intention of one day relocating it, you're heart may not be in it.<BR/><BR/>Also, you fail to mention that the San Francisco Giants were outdrawn by the Walter Haas led A's for most of the years that you brought up. Yet, MLB went out of its way to save the Giants for San Francisco despite crappy attendance for decades. On the other hand, Bud Selig and Lew Wolff have it in for Oakland. That's the bottom line. They've never respected Oakland and have never given Oakland a fair shot at retaining its team. The fans know this and they vote with their feet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11432525.post-67415239482189718642009-03-15T11:42:00.000-07:002009-03-15T11:42:00.000-07:00Bartleby-- Amen!Bartleby-- Amen!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11432525.post-40789464315341891512009-03-15T11:12:00.000-07:002009-03-15T11:12:00.000-07:00Anon 3:14,Dude, it's not me who's being disingenou...Anon 3:14,<BR/><BR/>Dude, it's not me who's being disingenous. The 1.9 million average attendance figure excludes the strike years. And if you want to compare how the A's were doing during the Haas years of '81 to 95 to other AL teams, go to http://www.baseball-almanac.com/teams/athlatte.shtml. With the exception of the unsustainable, spend-the-equivalent-of-$200-million-payroll-in-today's-dollar years of '88-92 which you keep cherry picking to make your point, the A's were below average AL attendance in 7 out of the remaining 9 years of Haas ownership. And not just a little below, 400,000-600,000 below, or roughly 33% below average.<BR/><BR/>And of course, you ARE cherry picking five unique years when trying to make a point about A's attendance, and ignoring the other 35 during which attendance was dismal by any measure.<BR/><BR/>And you ARE ignoring the fact that the A's now must compete with one of the strongest teams in baseball, in one of the best parks in baseball, with the stronger historic following, a mere ten miles away.<BR/><BR/>And you ARE ignoring that Alameda county is the least affluent corner of the Bay Area.<BR/><BR/>And you ARE ignoring the fact that Oakland is already oversaturated with professional sports, with two other teams to support and the aforementioned strong MLB competitor right across the bridge.<BR/><BR/>And you ARE ignoring the fact that in modern MLB economics, it's not even about overall attendance, it's about club and suite sales. I understand and respect why you might not like this, we can all feel nostalgic for the days when that wasn't the case. However, it is the current reality and it's not going to change. That's why the Giants will fight to the death over this. Even more than attendance, the pertinent statistics are these:<BR/><BR/>- Alameda county, median household income 2007: $66,430<BR/>- Santa Clara county, median household income 2007: $84,360 (highest in California)<BR/>- Santa Clara County has twice as many Fortune 1000 companies as Alameda County and San Francisco COMBINED. <BR/><BR/>There simply is no question San Jose is a stronger market for modern Major League Baseball than Oakland. Lew Wolff doesn't have it in for Oakland; he's just a businessman who recognizes this reality. As do the Giants.<BR/><BR/>By the way, this "geographic center of the Bay Area" nonsense is really getting tired. That might be persuasive if there was not already an MLB team within that "geographic center" (there is), if there were not already two other professional sports teams within that "geographic center" (there are), if MLB attendance in that "geographic center" had not already been proven dismal for 40 years (it has), if people actually rode BART to A's games (the overwhelming majority do not) and if that "geographic center" were truly the "geographic center" of the region's business base (it isn't). In what world does it make sense to bunch four professional sports teams together an hour away from the corporate money which drives modern professional sports and leave only one niche team to serve that market?bAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11432525.post-77813361520529507052009-03-15T08:49:00.000-07:002009-03-15T08:49:00.000-07:00ML nailed it in his last comment.Baseball fans in ...ML nailed it in his last comment.<BR/><BR/>Baseball fans in the South Bay will support the <B>hell</B> out of a team that plays here.<BR/><BR/>And, yes, if you live in Oakland, it sucks that your team is moving, but it's a car trip away, not a plane ride.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11432525.post-17956952864821659342009-03-15T08:45:00.000-07:002009-03-15T08:45:00.000-07:00Anon 6:38--based upon your logic, which I find fas...Anon 6:38--based upon your logic, which I find fascinating since it isn't close to reality, but assuming that it is...than give up the territorial rights--Giants have nothing to lose--all of us South Bay snobs will continue to go the the park by the bay and drink our chardonnay wines with our pinky out---ignoring the "landlocked" San Jose A's ballpark--<BR/><BR/>So if this is reality why don't the Giants just give 'em up? Oh that's right....its not reality....at least to many of us who live in the south bay and can't wait to buy season tix at the landlocked stadium in a perfect downtown location---close to restuarants, bars, transit, ....where there is actually athmosphere before and after the games-just like at AT&T--Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11432525.post-2049406143074575232009-03-14T18:50:00.000-07:002009-03-14T18:50:00.000-07:00I remember reading elsewhere that a commenter said...I remember reading elsewhere that a commenter said he lived in the South Bay in '82, saw that it was Giants territory, hasn't been back since and felt it hasn't changed.<BR/><BR/>You know what has changed? In that time, San Jose has grown by nearly 370,000 people. That change is almost as much as the population of Oakland <B><I>now</I></B>. Were those people supposed to pledge allegiance to the Giants when they moved to town? No they weren't.<BR/><BR/>The best part? Most of those people are plain old working stiffs like the rest of us. They aren't pretentious, they are just as hateful and jealous of SF as Oakland partisans. Of course, anon, if you could see past your blind provincial rage you might see that.Marine Layerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13515986023439927575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11432525.post-65503101795397315062009-03-14T18:38:00.000-07:002009-03-14T18:38:00.000-07:00Anon 5:45, It has nothing to do with which city is...Anon 5:45, It has nothing to do with which city is better. It has everything to do with the fact that the Giants know that the South Bay identifies with them much more than they do with poor little Oakland. <BR/><BR/>South Bay fans tend to be a bit more pretentious than the blue collar fans who lower themselves in order to go to little old Oakland. The South Bay fan likes power, wealth, and glamor. Therefore, they kiss up to San Francisco and ignore Oakland. That's also a huge reason that Lew Wolff shouldn't be throwing hay makers and bricks at Oakland and its fans. <BR/><BR/>He's going to have to convert many of those pretentious Giant fans in the South Bay. He's going to have to make them believe that a ballpark on a landlocked lot near downtown San Jose, is more glamorous than going to San Francisco's waterfront for a Giant's game. <BR/><BR/>Good luck with that Lew. Don't expect any sympathy from Oakland when it doesn't work out the way you planed it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11432525.post-17667416644762429742009-03-14T17:45:00.000-07:002009-03-14T17:45:00.000-07:00Anon 3:14- answer one question-If Oakland is such ...Anon 3:14- answer one question-<BR/><BR/>If Oakland is such an incredible location v. San Jose than why are the Giants working so hard to keep the A's out of San Jose rather than rejoicing that the A's will be moving to the "lessor" city without a Bart station--leaving the more attractive city for the Giants-<BR/><BR/>Something tells me that Wolff and the Giants know a bit about which city is more desirable to have as their own--Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11432525.post-74012145240700801432009-03-14T15:14:00.000-07:002009-03-14T15:14:00.000-07:00bartleby, Your arguments are disingenuous. When y...bartleby, <BR/><BR/>Your arguments are disingenuous. <BR/><BR/>When you say that 1.9 million is not a good average attendance, you're misrepresenting what was considered "good attendance" in the 80's and early 90's. Also, when you made up your little chart trying to prove that the A's did not draw well in Oakland under Walter Haas, you failed to mention that two of the years were you post attendance numbers, were strike shortened seasons. Also, you fail to compare Oakland's attendance during that time to San Francisco's so we can have the luxury of putting those numbers into context. That's extremely disingenuous of you. <BR/><BR/>Also, Lew Wolff making a statement that "Oakland's economy is weaker now than it was when he bought the team," is only Lew Wolff's opinion, and the same could be said for San Jose's economy. <BR/><BR/>The idea that taking a team from the very geographic center of the Bay Area in an area with its own BART station, and tucking in it in a corner of the Bay in an area without its own BART station is somehow good business is ridiculous. <BR/><BR/>Lew Wolff only has himself to blame for alienating his customers at every opportunity in Oakland. Lew Wolff will get the exact attendance he deserves based on how he treats his customers and his host city, no more, and no less.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11432525.post-20099203714679941452009-03-14T13:06:00.000-07:002009-03-14T13:06:00.000-07:00I think a lot of folks are missing the obvious. W...I think a lot of folks are missing the obvious. Wolff has little to lose from being blunt. Maybe a minor hit to attendance in the short term from the extreme propeller-beanie crowd (but any size slice of a small pie is still a small slice). But the big picture is getting a new ballpark in a viable location; the A's long-term viability depends on it. <BR/><BR/>Bottom line: Making the case that he has exhausted all realistic options in the East Bay is an important part of making the case for removal of T-rights. If the T-rights didn't exist, it would benefit the A's to have two cities bidding against each other. With the T-rights in place, misleading anyone into believing Oakland is in any way a viable option only undermines the A's chances of getting something done in San Jose.<BR/><BR/>The issue goes beyond the fact that San Jose has a perfect site all-but-ready, and that Oakland politics make a new ballpark unlikely to ever happen there. The main issue, and the ones the true believers refuse to accept in the face of all evidence, is that Oakland is simply not a viable MLB market under current economic conditions. (At least not with the Giants playing in a state of the art ballpark a mere ten miles away).<BR/><BR/>Lest there be any confusion on this point, Wolff alludes to it directly in the press release: Oakland had little business base to begin with, and it has only gotten worse. Attendance has sucked the entire time the team has been in Oakland, even when the team was great. Why in the world would you seriously consider building a new yard in a weak demographic market only 10 miles (if in downtown Oakland) or 20 miles (if at the current Coli site) from one of the strongest teams in MLB?<BR/><BR/>I was somewhat bemused by the Anon poster who posted the Wikipedia blurb in SUPPORT of the idea that Oakland was somehow a viable location. That blurb noted that even under Haas, oft cited as a model owner, who loved the city and deficit-spent tens of millions of dollars to field an All-Star team that made repeat visits to the championship, attendance averaged only 1.9 million.<BR/><BR/>Of course, even that figure was achieved before there was an AT&T park. But for context, 1.9 million would rank the team 26th out of 30 teams in last years attendance figures, edging out the Devil Rays. If that's the ceiling for the market (under circumstances which are not sustainable and are unlikely to be repeated), clearly it is not a viable market.<BR/><BR/>And none of this considers the fact that the economics of baseball have changed since the '80s. When Walter Haas was around, club seat and suite sales were a non-issue. Now, they are a dominant factor. There is simply no reason to believe the A's can compete with the Giants for premium seat revenue while based in Oakland. <BR/><BR/>Lew isn't taking a big risk by being dismissive. The Coli site may be the path of least resistance for getting a new yard, but it's not an economically viable site for a half-billion dollar investment. If a ballpark is not built in San Jose, it will be built in some other part of the East Bay (maybe Fremont comes back to life), Sacramento, or in another state.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11432525.post-8554372109454425582009-03-14T09:18:00.000-07:002009-03-14T09:18:00.000-07:00Huge difference between Ron Gonzales and Jerry Bro...Huge difference between Ron Gonzales and Jerry Brown. Gonzales actively pursued bringing MLB to town. Wolff saw Gonzales as an interloper so he didn't work with him. OTOH Brown was indifferent to the A's and saw little reason to entertain any ballpark proposals.<BR/><BR/>Now, SJ has Chuck Reed, who is on good terms with Wolff and has shown a pro-baseball side that wasn't as pronounced during the 2006 election. Ron Dellums may be all for keeping the A's in town, but he was told by Wolff "don't break your pick," plus he's hamstrung by his own ineffectiveness as mayor.Marine Layerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13515986023439927575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11432525.post-83777257616135405962009-03-14T09:13:00.000-07:002009-03-14T09:13:00.000-07:00Lew's taking an awfully big risk by being so dismi...Lew's taking an awfully big risk by being so dismissive. He must be very confident that it's impossible for San Jose to fail. The Coliseum site has always been, and always will be, the past of least resistance for a new A's ballpark.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11432525.post-78331293504740502732009-03-13T22:01:00.000-07:002009-03-13T22:01:00.000-07:00Lew Madoff? Hyperbole abounds.I support a stadium ...Lew Madoff? Hyperbole abounds.<BR/><BR/>I support a stadium in San Jose. I support a stadium in Oakland. All this vitriol could be good I guess.Jeffreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14086938574207856042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11432525.post-78548372311391104622009-03-13T21:42:00.000-07:002009-03-13T21:42:00.000-07:00So Anon 9:26--what has Dellum's been doing since 2...So Anon 9:26--what has Dellum's been doing since 2006? San Jose during this time identified a site, bought all the property, completed an EIR, and is now prepared for the A's since Fremont fell apart--the key part of leadership is "leading" and not "following". Dellums/Oakland have shown zero "leader"ship during the past 3 years when it comes to trying to build a new stadium for the A's in Oakland---Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11432525.post-91349936841451329972009-03-13T21:26:00.000-07:002009-03-13T21:26:00.000-07:00Tony D,What you say about the Gonzalez years can v...Tony D,<BR/><BR/>What you say about the Gonzalez years can very well be said about our Jerry Brown years in Oakland. We all know that Brown never supported the A's and wanted to build his uptown vision of new real estate and condos. <BR/><BR/>When Dellums was elected mayor in 2006, it was just around the time that LW was trying to move the team to Fremont. All he was able to do was step aside and allow LW the flexibility trying to achieve his goal. Now he finally has the opportunity of showing the city of Oakland and the A's that he is very much serious about keeping tradition alive in our city. More power to him!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11432525.post-49070607140912683242009-03-13T20:28:00.000-07:002009-03-13T20:28:00.000-07:00Why is everyone so quick to state that Lew Wolff "...Why is everyone so quick to state that Lew Wolff "wasted" three years and $24 million in Fremont? Who's to say that Mr. Wolff won't build in Fremont; i.e. retail/office/residential when the time/economy is right?<BR/><BR/>Good to see you back Rob (I think?). Bartleby said it pretty clearly back in 2006 when Wolff "killed" San Jose's then hopes, and most recently the Merc's Mark Purdy: MLB would only deal with the Giants territorial rights to Santa Clara County ONLY IF a ballpark was definetely built as a result.<BR/><BR/>Yes, Yes, Lew Wolff did state back in 06 that he tried numerous times to buy out those rights, but because the despised Ron Gonzales administration was still running SJ, perhaps a little fibbing was going on. No way in hell was a San Jose ballpark going to be built during the Gonzales years (just ask Tom McEnery).<BR/><BR/>Fast forward to the now: maybe a ballpark in San Jose, with the friendly Chuck Reed and Co. at the healm, will happen as a result of the Giants T-Rights being dealt with.<BR/><BR/>Off subject somewhat: Wolff defended Selig pretty well regarding steroids last week in the SJ Mercury (M. Purdy interview). No Rob, he's not mad at him.<BR/><BR/>Lastly, this "IGNORANT FOOL" can't wait to watch MLB/The A's in downtown San Jose!Tony D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/03392232221747908883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11432525.post-23242684899990408432009-03-13T20:00:00.000-07:002009-03-13T20:00:00.000-07:00I guess Lew thinks a new lease isnt going to be ne...I guess Lew thinks a new lease isnt going to be necessary after 2013 because he's talking tough and harsh.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11432525.post-74682560790636046802009-03-13T19:11:00.000-07:002009-03-13T19:11:00.000-07:00Rob, you can believe your hypothesis all you want....Rob, you can believe your hypothesis all you want. I'm looking at the trend.<BR/><BR/>Think about it this way. Wolff has spent the last several weeks fielding calls for numerous political and civic leaders in San Jose, Oakland, and perhaps elsewhere. He told both cities not to bother with MLB, but he did it in very different ways. He told San Jose to be quiet and little else. He told Oakland to stop and get out of the way. Do you really think he's ready to give up based on those distinctly different reactions?Marine Layerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13515986023439927575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11432525.post-72463335877368109022009-03-13T19:04:00.000-07:002009-03-13T19:04:00.000-07:00Nicely said Georob!!Nicely said Georob!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11432525.post-42985377018743312752009-03-13T19:01:00.000-07:002009-03-13T19:01:00.000-07:00A PR faux paus by Wolff...and Dellums letter was a...A PR faux paus by Wolff...and Dellums letter was a stroke of genius?--so GeoRob--what's the outcome? Everyone knows what Wolff's intentions are---isn't that refreshing----because we have no idea what the f*** Dellums/Oaklands intentions are---a desperate act like this when you have nothing else to offer. <BR/><BR/>It wasn't Wolff who started the tussle on the playground---he just knew how to end it...and win it...quickly. A PR faux paus?---not even close---I'd call it a KO---well placed, well delivered and very timely!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11432525.post-11051649858438144472009-03-13T18:49:00.000-07:002009-03-13T18:49:00.000-07:00Lew Wolff could have done one of two things:1) Be ...Lew Wolff could have done one of two things:<BR/><BR/>1) Be open to anything new Oakland could bring to the table. Since it's likely that there isn't anything new, Wolff's off the hook.<BR/><BR/>2) Simply say "at this time we are not looking at Oakland", period. Short, sweet, to the point.<BR/><BR/>Instead, we have this. I mean, what does Wolff gain by acting like a jilted lover whose ex wants to come back? Absolutely nothing.<BR/><BR/>Lew is not only mad at Oakland, but of the whole ballpark process. And perhaps that includes his old frat buddy Selig himself. I mean, if there's always been a way around territorial rights, then why hasn't MLB acted; especially if there's so much revenue waiting in Santa Clara County?<BR/><BR/>I'm convinced more than ever now that Wolff is considering stepping aside, especially after pulling a PR faux paus like this. <BR/><BR/>You also gotta wonder why he suddenly decided to allow Billy Beane more spending room this off-season. I'd like to think it's because building a winning team is the only option he has left. But it may also be because Wolff thinks his tenure is limited, so why not take one last shot?<BR/><BR/>Again Rhamesis, I admit these ideas sound far fetched. But as I said earlier, so much has changed in a short period of time that the old "logical answers" may not seem logical any moreGeorobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16213186069766951534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11432525.post-22171367324757667962009-03-13T18:33:00.000-07:002009-03-13T18:33:00.000-07:00ML--the clock is ticking and has been ticking ever...ML--the clock is ticking and has been ticking ever since AT&T opened up 10+ years ago--you need to compete--how many years were wasted in Oakland by other ownership groups with nothing to show for it--Wolff just spent 3 years and $24M on Fremont--all wasted---SJ has a site, and EIR and all the demographics that sports teams salivate over---and you want him to play nice and drag this on---I respect anyone who can be direct...its a much better approach than trying to please everyone---time to get this thing going--game on!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com