Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Jeez, they will not die! All the attention has been focused on Baltimore and they just keep plugging away.
I guess we'll find out if Beane's #### works in the play-ins.
And you're about to hear a lot of crap about the small postseason attendances (if they end up having any home playoff games) in Oakland to which I say who cares. The people who do show up are as passionate as any fans in the country and it matters to them.
If the lowest team attendance in the league is over 19,000 then MLB just had a fantastic year and has pretty much nothing to complain about.
It's all too easy for Selig and MLB to interpret things that way and run up another round of expansion...
I was wondering that myself and the consensus seems to be that it is, in fact, considered making the playoffs despite it being called the "Play-in" game which makes it sound like it's not. They should just call it the Wild Card game to reduce the confusion.
If the A's win their final two games, and the Yankees lose at least once, the A's would be the top seed in the AL.
I think the national TV money has gotten so big that teams won't want to cut that pie smaller for a small one year share of expansion fees.
Lew Wolff was winning his battle with me. He turned me, a passionate fan, away.
But Lew & I were both wrong. Me, joyfully. Him, not so much.
The playoffs is free money for Lew, which nobody would ever look sideways at, and if the team still fails to sell out, it would perhaps even strengthen his argument that Oakland and the Coliseum are unsuitable.
The A's have always drawn poorly relatively to the league, even in the 70s when the team was awesome and the stadium conditions weren't an issue yet.
The 10s have seen the A's try and bail from the area completely to San Jose for a ballpark that has at least some taxpayer assistance
Oakland wanted to play hardball, they lost. Why is that so hard to fathom? You make it sound as though Oakland was willing to work with the team at any point, they wouldn't, which is why the team was sold to Wolff to begin with. The prevailing thought was that if anyone could do something, it would be him. They (City of Oakland) cared more about keeping the Raiders content. They made their bed and can now lie in it. IF there had been good faith negotiations from Oakland, you might have a valid point. There NEVER was.
Aside from the rest of the revisionist history, I like how you left out that the part where the Giants did the same thing--that is, when they weren't trying to move to Florida.
And that right now, the only thing stopping the A's from "building a palace with their own money" is the Giants.
I don't see what the Giants were doing in the 80s as relevant
The 90s had endless whining over a taxpayer funded ballpark while the Giants were building a palace with their own money and the A's spent most of the decade rooted to the bottom of the AL West.
Of course not, is that why you left out the 80's on your post? Correct me if I am wrong, however, I am pretty sure that was your post in 46. You made correlations between what the Giants were doing and what the A's were doing....you can't backtrack on that when it no longer fits your argument. The Giants have EVERYTHING to do with this situation, as if not for their opposition, this wouldn't even be something we would be discussing.
I used to work for the county. Believe me, the stonewalling wasn't coming from the team.
And for good reason. It's completely understandable why Oakland didn't want to get involved with building a new stadium. The city has and had bigger issues.
There is no equivalent spot in the East Bay to China Basin, not even close. Jack London has many similar cosmetic features (close to downtown, near the water) with half the population and 1/50th of the corporate money/local affluence.
I didn't ignore it at all, it was literally the second thing I mentioned.
I don't see what the Giants were doing in the 80s as relevant, unless you want to state that the Giants playing footsie with moving to San Jose or out of the area entirely fueled part of the glory years of A's attendance. Something I wouldn't really disagree with.
Oh, I must have missed the part where, as in every other section of that post, you made a connection to what the Giants were doing at the time too....or did you not understand that was what I meant? Look at your post, in each "decade" you break down what the A's AND Giants were doing, except when you talk about the "Haas period". Also, your post about the 90's, as I pointed out, is quite wrong. The A's spent "most of the decade" in the cellar...the Giants spent less time building that "palace" in the 90's then the A's spent in 1st place....
Again I ask, if you need to twist and bend in such a fashion to make your argument, isn't it time for a re-evaluation of the situation?
The only systemic problem with the A's is they've spent most of the past century being owned by ####### parasites.
Admittedly that might be a gamble worth making but I don't want them to, because I'm a Giants fan
Neither does anywhere in the South Bay, since it's basically a collection of overgrown suburbs with a weaker core than the most worm-ridden apple. More money, sure, but also a local fanbase that doesn't give a fig about the A's as well. You're giving up a solid collection of rich suburbs in the East Bay that, crucially, actually like your team for a collection in the South Bay that don't and hoping the lure of local baseball overrides the lure of the Giants.
-Anyone who lives around here can tell you Wolff IS sabotaging the team and has been for years. There are both big and small hunks of evidence for this. Big: constant badmouthing the stadium & city, shipping out almost anyone who could get a big payday, etc Small: ruining the fan experience by such things as inflating the parking prices and understaffing the concessions to the point where getting a beer can take 2 innings.
Those suburbs are a very great deal Giants fans now, and have been since Pac Bell opened. Once it became as easy to get to the Giants as it was to the A's it all switched. Head out to Walnut Creek and count A's hats and Giants hats. Hell, walk into a farmer's market or a bar in Oakland and count A's hats and Giants hats. In 1989 you wouldn't see one black and orange. Today it's about 25-30%. The stadium changed everything. The Giants were a South Bay team in 1989 because those were the only people that could get to the ballpark. Very different scenario now.
It's relevant in that it goes directly against the steaming pile of revisionism you put forth.
The Giants agreeing to move across the country to Florida, after being repeatedly rejected in their 5-year search for a publicly funded stadium in San Jose, is not worth mentioning (later amended to "playing footsie"). Conversely, the A's trying to get a new publicly funded stadium in Oakland or privately financed stadium in San Jose is "whining over a taxpayer funded ballpark" and "bailing from the area completely."
The Giants being gifted prime real estate for free and having the city chip in $70 million in infrastructure improvements is "building a palace with their own money." Conversely, the A's building their own park while getting a ~$20 million discount on land in San Jose is "receiving some taxpayer assistance" and "failing to spend the bare minimum on their team."
Basically, you think the Giants are benevolent geniuses because they moved to a more lucrative part of the Bay Area to privately finance a stadium on public land after failing to secure public financing, and you think the A's are evil idiots for trying to do precisely the same thing. Oh, and the Giants being the only thing stopping the A's from doing exactly what the Giants did in the late '90s is actually an example the A's refusing to negotiate in good faith.
You don't want other teams to do what your team did because you think it might harm your team. The rest of the counterfactual spin is just rationalizing.
But in reality that isn't the way it works - ask any Dad who's moved across the country and seen his kid grown up rooting for the Dodgers rather than the Yankees like Dad does because that's the only local team the kid has ever known.
Because that's how long it takes little Tommy to grow up and start asking his Dad to go to games. Most people are casual fans anyway and not diehards. My parents both grew up in the Midwest - they came out here fans of the Tigers (Dad) and Cubs (Mom). You know who they root for now? The A's - because they've lived in Oakland for 30 years, but mostly because their kid (i.e. me) grew up there, turned 8, discovered baseball, and started bugging them to go to A's games. If you're not a blood fan, and most people aren't, it's all negotiable.
No need to be an ass hole about it, Nutbag, but I'll play anyway
Which is all great - I wish they would do that too. But you must understand, and I'm sure you do, that San Francisco and Oakland are not equivalent locations.
More seriously, I think every team tries to discourage walk-up as a business practice. It's easier to sell season tix and have an idea of what's coming. I don't think this idea is unique to Wolff, nor do I think it's part of some mischievous scheme. Merely a standard business practice. I believe every event prefers to operate in this fashion (concerts, sporting events, etc.)
Have season tix actually gone up since IT'S A TARP?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (0 members)
Page rendered in 3.0344 seconds, 73 querie(s) executed