The A’s are not seriously seeking a new stadium in Oakland. See above. They’re trying to move to San Jose. They even have a spot picked out and a name for the stadium, “Cisco Field.” Prior to that they were trying to move to Fremont.
The position of Oakland and Alameda County isn’t relevant; the A’s don’t want to stay there.
RickJay:
Really? That’s a shame. The Warriors game I attended when my family and I took a trip to northern California was one of the most fun pro sports events I ever attended. Reasonably priced, too.
I don’t see how that follows. The Sharks are the ONLY hockey team in the Bay area. (Even if there were - and I find the idea preposterous - any hard-code Golden Seals fanatics who kept an allegiance to the team after it left the Bay Area, became the Barons and then merged with the North Stars, the creation Sharks technically represented the restoration of the Golden Seals being separated from the North Stars.) In the case of the A’s, if San Jose is already solid Giants territory, why assume these fans are ready to swap their fan jerseys? Has there been any indication that San Jose residents want a team distinct from San Francisco that they can call “theirs”?
I was just kidding.
Some may and some may not. My point being that anyone who does - and surely some will - represents a real loss for the Giants.
The Giants are not just posturing or being greedy; the A’s in San Jose will represent a very likely loss in revenue, and I don’t blame them for being opposed to the idea.
RickJay:
I obviously knew you weren’t saying that the Warriors genuinely have zero fans, but I took your statement to mean that Warriors basketball isn’t all that popular for Bay Area residents to follow. Is that not true?
Oh, I agree with that. I just thought you were saying that San Jose residents were a certainty to become A’s fans en masse if the team were to move there.
I wonder if, at some point, both teams and players are going to get tired of dealing with Scott Boras.
As famous as Boras is, he isn’t particularly difficult to deal with as agents go. Fans portray him as the devil incarnate, but there is nothing bad about Boras that you won’t find far worse in other agents. If anything, Boras is just refreshingly honest.
Look up Albert Pujols’s agent, Dan Lozano, for a real peice of filth.
In addition to what RickJay said, why would players get sick of dealing with him? He consistently gets his clients big contracts, and by all accounts treats them well.
As for the teams, their biggest consideration is not whether Boras is a nice guy or not; it’s whether they think the price they are playing for the player is a reflection of the player’s value to the team. I’m sure Boras drives a hard bargain, but he is able to do so precisely because he is dealing in a scarce resource with a high market value. No-one is holding a gun to the teams’ heads in these negotiations, and if they don’t think a particular player is worth what Boras is asking, they are free to pass on him.
Not disagreeing on Boras, but what are the details on Lozano? I don’t know anything about him.
See above. :dubious: I referred to “the pols”. That includes the ones in San Jose or anywhere. The fact that the ones in Oakland are already burned is the reason the A’s have to try their act elsewhere. But it’s the act that is badly chosen, not the targeted relocation site. Clear now?
As for Boras, he’s only doing what his clients hire him to do - get them every possible cent, regardless. The fact that he does so very effectively is not to his discredit. If you want to deplore somebody, deplore the players who go for every possible cent, regardless. Or, better yet, deplore the system that makes it possible to dismiss every other consideration.
Huh? That article is from before DiceK even signed with Boston, so it just speculation on what might happen rather than any evidence of what did. In fact the article thinks that the Red Sox would get off the field value from signing Dice K from additional exposure in Japan. Is that really what you are going with to prove your point?
There are allegations he used girls to get clients among other things.
What part of it is a mlb issue and not a political issue are you having trouble with?
Why would I deplore players for wanting to be paid what their worth?
Your “site” request seemed to be for their expectations, not the reality, and that’s what I responded to. So you really were asking for a cite that something hasn’t happened? 
The part where the local pols are onboard with building a new ballpark with public funds. I’d ask *you *for a “site”, but that too would be asking for something that hasn’t happened.
You shouldn’t. It’s a business for them, too. The problem is with blaming Boras for it.
And yet you said, just a few posts previously:
This suggests that the players somehow deserve our opprobrium for trying to maximize their income.
No, you made two claims: (1) The Red Sox had expectations to make money from the Japanese market as a result of signing Matsuzaka - that is in fact something that has already happened, since those expectations would have been established in 2006-2007, and (2) that Boston realized none of their expected gains is marketing revenue from signing Matsuzaka - or in your words, “not one little bit.”
Those are things that are either true or are not true. Can you support either?
Your cite comes from BEFORE Matsuzaka even started playing for Boston, so clearly it can’t answer the second point, and in fact it doesn’t even clearly state if Boston had any big merchandising/Japanese market expectations at all - the author acknowledges that Boston could not get substantial merchandising revenue gains due to the way that revenue is shared, something the Red Sox organization obviously would have known, and goes back to saying the gain would be in winning the World Series and increasing the franchise’s overall value, not in getting Japanese marketing cash. So if they had expectations of any significance about penetratring the Japanese market, you’ve provided no evidence for it. And even if they did, you’ve also provided no evidence those expectations were not met “one little bit.”
So if Boston had expectations that were not met with regards to penetrating the Japanese market, can you provide some evidence as to what they were and whether or not they were met? I think we can agree their expectations regarding Matsuzaka’s PITCHING sure weren’t met, at least starting in 2009, but that isn’t what you were asked for evidence for.
Looks like the Red Sox have replaced Papelbon.
A’s trade Bailey, Sweeney to Red Sox.
In return, Oakland gets Josh Reddick and prospects Miles Head and Raul Alcantara.
I’m starting to wonder if Oakland is planning to field a team this season.
This is way past the usual “we’re rebuilding” thing teams do. Even the prospect-happy A’s have never thrown in the towel like this; the guys they’re trading away are themselves young players with upside. Especially Trevor Cahill, who is only 24 next season and is under control for years to come; how do you explain that as a “rebuilding” move?
Something’s up.
Maybe it’s a big “fuck you” to MLB.
“If you’re not going to let us move to San Jose, we’re not even going to try anymore.”
Here’s a related story from today’s San Francisco Chronicle.
I spoke before reading up on the issue. Indeed, in the Bailey trade article Beane - who is now a minority owner in the franchise, BTW - just outright says that the financial disparity has made it impossible for the A’s to realistically have a shot at competing; he’s more or less admitting the Rangers and Angels are way too far ahead in available funds. Which is reasonable to admit when the Angels are in a position to say “well, sure the Vernon Wells thing was a disaster. Let’s give hundreds of millions more to Albert Pujols and C.J. Wilson.” So yeah, they’re packing it in until they’re the San Jos-A’s, and they’re making it really obvious they’re packing it in. I again must point out that trading the likes of Cahill and Gonzalez is NOT Billy Beane’s M.O.; he didn’t trade guys like Tim Hudson and Barry Zito when they were just a few years into their careers. Maybe it’s a “Major League” scenario - “we’re gonna be so bad we’ll have to move.”
What is for sure is that the A’s are going to absolutely crater in 2012 and so will attendance. The fan base is furious, and understandably so, and the team’s going to be indescribably horrible; looking at their roster now I don’t see how they win 62 games. They were last in the AL in attendance last year as it was, and with a shitty team that’s throwing in the towel and is already in the worst stadium in MLB, they won’t draw flies.
If they move to San Jose do you think we’ll stop hearing the nickname “A’s” as much and have people use “Athletics” more? “San Jose A’s” is hard to say, but “San Jose Athletics” is easier.
I dunno. I started a thread some years ago (not gonna look it up) about the way fans (baseball fans, anyway) don’t seem to “like” three-syllable names, judging by the tendency for every 3-syllable team name to be reduced to a single letter: A’s, M’s, O’s, unless two team names start with the same letter, then it’s D-backs and D-rays. Sure, some two-syllable names get shortened as well, but always to a full syllable, not just a single letter. I’ve never heard anybody refer to the “New York Y’s” or the “Boston R’s”. Granted, none the words “Athletics”, “Mariners”, and “Orioles” contains a suitable syllable to shorten to.
Hmm … “San Jose 'Tics”.
Nah.
Has any team relocated as many times as the Athletics? [del]Boston[/del], Philadelphia, Kansas City, Oakland … San Jose?
ETA: Scratch that, I don’t know why I thought the A’s started out in Boston. I guess they’re tied with the Braves: Boston, Milwaukee, Atlanta.
Nevermind. The Wikipedia article on the Oakland A’s suggests it was newspaper headline writers, not fans, that started the practice, though the use of the initial does tend to fit with my point that these names don’t contain a suitable syllable for abbreviation.