The way Selig lets the Guants treat the A's is a disgrace and it's not in the best interest of baseball.

Oh for ####'s sake.

Of course, one could see it as Selig supporting the long suffering fans of the A's by ensuring they keep the team they took from Kansas City that they took from Philadelphia.

I've always been interested by those early team moves.

I mean, it woul be insane, just absolutely bonkers, to move from Philadelphia to KC today, or Boston to Milwaukee, or New York to anywhere, and it's not like the population balance was any more favorable to those moves 50 years ago. What were the owners thinking?

Well, we know what Calvin Griffith was thinking moved the Senators to Minnesota, because he mentioned it in a speech.

Speaking at a Lions Club in Minnesota in 1978, owner Calvin Griffith was quoted as saying: "I'll tell you why we came to Minnesota. It was when we found out you only had 15,000 blacks here. Black people don't go to ballgames, but they'll fill up a rassling ring and put up such a chant it'll scare you to death. We came here because you've got good, hardworking white people here."

I can't think of a snide enough comment about Grifith to insert here. What a #%^*+.

Speaking at a Lions Club in Minnesota in 1978, owner Calvin Griffith was quoted as saying: "I'll tell you why we came to Minnesota. It was when we found out you only had 15,000 blacks here. Black people don't go to ballgames, but they'll fill up a rassling ring and put up such a chant it'll scare you to death. We came here because you've got good, hardworking white people here."

I now really love the fact that Kirby is the first Twin I always think of.

What a dick

The teams that left Philadelphia, Boston, St. Louis, and New York were all leaving cities that contained another, more popular major league team, for cities with no major league team. As for the Senators, other hypotheses are possible.

I mean, it woul be insane, just absolutely bonkers, to move from Philadelphia to KC today, or Boston to Milwaukee, or New York to anywhere, and it's not like the population balance was any more favorable to those moves 50 years ago. What were the owners thinking?

What #7 said, they would be going to places where they would be the big fish in a smaller pond plus they weren't drawing flies at the gate and had decrepit ballparks that were not getting replaced.

1954 Philadelphia As attendance 304k (8th of 8)
1955 Kansas City As attendance 1.3 million (2nd of 8)

1952 Boston Braves 281,000 (8th of 8)
1953 Milwaukee Braves 1.8 million (1st of 8)


1957 Brooklyn Dodgers 1.0 million (5th of 8)
1958 LA Dodgers 1.8 million (2nd of 8)


1957 NY Giants 653,000 (8th of 8)
1958 San Franc Giants 1.2 million (4th of 8)

TV contracts would make the calculation different today if a poorly supported team considered moving from a big market to an enthusiastic smaller one, I imagine.

I've always been curious as to how the perpetual doormat Phillies overcame the up-and-down Athletics in Philadelphia. I realize that the Athletics had years of losing in between dynasties. However, the Phillies had two pennants in the modern era surrounded by seasons upon seasons of 100 losses. I'm sure that the Athletics were frustrating and even infuriating, but there was some payoff. By the time the Phillies did reward longtime fans with a World Series title, the Athletics had already made a second move and won three World Series titles in that third city.

I'm not sure the A's were ever less popular, they just got sold to a guy who wanted to move them. The A's would have drawn just as well as the Phillies had they won as much. They outdrew the Phillies in the late 40s when they were competitive. The Phillies staying wasn't a fait accompli.

1954 Philadelphia As attendance 304k (8th of 8)
1955 Kansas City As attendance 1.3 million (2nd of 8)

1952 Boston Braves 281,000 (8th of 8)
1953 Milwaukee Braves 1.8 million (1st of 8)


1957 Brooklyn Dodgers 1.0 million (5th of 8)
1958 LA Dodgers 1.8 million (2nd of 8)


1957 NY Giants 653,000 (8th of 8)
1958 San Franc Giants 1.2 million (4th of 8)

If it was known that the team was looking to move, that would obviously hurt attendance in the final year plus. The Giants didn't appear to have any problem drawing when they won, and the Dodgers drew very well right up until their final season in Brooklyn.

Looking at the longer term attendance figure, it appears that moving gave a about a 5 year attendance boost, but after which team performance trumps all. Th A's and Braves weren't winning in their new digs, saw the fan excitement evaporate by year 6, and moved again shortly thereafter.

Looking at the longer term attendance figure, it appears that moving gave a about a 5 year attendance boost, but after which team performance trumps all. Th A's and Braves weren't winning in their new digs, saw the fan excitement evaporate by year 6, and moved again shortly thereafter.

Sounds like my relationship plan.

.

Speaking at a Lions Club in Minnesota in 1978, owner Calvin Griffith was quoted as saying: "I'll tell you why we came to Minnesota. It was when we found out you only had 15,000 blacks here. Black people don't go to ballgames, but they'll fill up a rassling ring and put up such a chant it'll scare you to death. We came here because you've got good, hardworking white people here."

Instead of moving, why didn't Griffith simply sign free agents from Samoa who could leap onto the field from the broadcast booth and bite their opponents when the home plate umpire's back was turned?

Sounds like my relationship plan.

excellent.

Of course, one could see it as Selig supporting the long suffering fans of the A's by ensuring they keep the team they took from Kansas City that they took from Philadelphia.

Instead he favors the NY Giants as they continue to Scrooge the rights the As so gallantly lent them.

Instead he favors the NY Giants as they continue to Scrooge the rights the As so gallantly lent them

This is the stinking dead fish of truth. Why isn't it common knowledge?

Common knowledge, hell, I've read #16 a dozen times and have no idea what it means. Maybe it's just too subtle a concept for the masses.

Wolff will be what, 83, when that extension ends?

http://newballpark.org/2012/12/22/temporary/

So what does “temporary” mean anyway?

For Lew Wolff, it means five years after 2013 spent at the Coliseum, followed by what he hopes is a smooth move to San Jose.

For Mark Davis, it means five more years at the Coliseum while a new Coliseum and village are built next door.

For the Coliseum Authority (JPA), it means… well, they haven’t exactly articulated what that means, have they? It may mean one new stadium, or two. It means having the Raiders and A’s pay more to stay temporarily at the Coliseum in order to reduce the subsidy Oakland and Alameda County currently pay to keep the place running. How much more? We don’t really know. It’s a delicate balancing act. In the previous post I alluded to Davis and Wolff not wanting significantly higher rents at the stadium, yet that’s exactly what will be required if the JPA is to reach its goal of offsetting costs better.

The Merc’s John Woolfork and the Chronicle’s John Shea have dug into the lease matter more, getting reaction from local pols.

Woolfork found that the lease extension talk started in July 2011, when A’s President Michael Crowley first requested a lease extension. With the negotiations going very slowly, the surprise is the MLB tried to help act as an intermediary in the discussions but was rejected by the A’s.

Shea’s big find was that Wolff, while preferring to stay in Oakland over a move to a “temporary home venue”, admitted that “there are options” for such a transitional home.

Those two new pieces of information are huge. Whether or not you believe Wolff is bluffing with the temporary venue idea, he just played that card. He’s thinking about it. And you can bet that he has at least one location in mind. It’s out of the standard team owner playbook. Many will feel that the A’s are locked into the East Bay thanks to territorial rights, and that more than anything should dictate how the A’s and MLB act. Most of the time, these positions are merely negotiating ploys to extract concessions. Playing the temporary venue card is a sure sign of desperation, which Wolff has displayed for some time. If it forces MLB to act on his request or the JPA to commit to a Raiders stadium that would remake the Coliseum complex (per the letter), it will have been well worth it. If it results in a “mutually beneficial” five year lease, it buys everyone time to figure out the next step.

There is a value proposition in play. In the short term (the length of the extension), the A’s will be averse to a lease that hurts their revenue position. For instance, the Warriors’ lease at Oracle Arena had the team pay $7.5 million for the 2011-12 season. That figure includes revenue sharing of club seat and suite sales, which helped finance the arena. The A’s rent for 2012 is $1 million, and they get to keep parking and some ad/concession revenues. If the A’s were forced to pay something closer to what the Warriors pay while giving up revenue, that’s up to a $10 million hit to team revenue, or -6% or so annually. Suddenly the lease extension isn’t just a matter of convenience, it’s a real question of cost-benefit. There is a point at which it costs too much to stay at the Coliseum, especially if there are no agreements on improvements to the old stadium such as scoreboards or even plumbing (those resources would be used on new stadia). I don’t think the A’s should get the sweetheart deal they’ve been on since 1995, but this seems like too much considering the age and state of the Coliseum.That’s how the specter of a temporary home comes closer to being real. If the A’s are faced with having to forego $10 million in revenue each year for five years, would it make sense to invest that money in a different option? A temporary option?

Speaking at a Lions Club in Minnesota in 1978, owner Calvin Griffith was quoted as saying: "I'll tell you why we came to Minnesota. It was when we found out you only had 15,000 blacks here. Black people don't go to ballgames, but they'll fill up a rassling ring and put up such a chant it'll scare you to death. We came here because you've got good, hardworking white people here."

Is DC even that good a rassling town?

After Clark Griffith died in 1955, Calvin apparently contacted Los Angeles officials about moving his franchise there, but was turned down (whether this was before the Dodgers reached out to LA, I do not know). Griffith may have tried to move the Senators to LA after the Dodgers arrived, but ultimately decided on the Twin Cities instead.

This is the stinking dead fish of truth. Why isn't it common knowledge?

Because it's also common knowledge that the ownership of both teams has since changed, cementing the transfer and complicating the issue. So now you have a situation where, regardless of the original intentions or past owners, the current Giants owners paid for those rights as part of buying the team and the current A's owners got a cut rate price in part because those rights weren't included.