This is completely rational and sensible. Therefore, it will never happen.

Threaten to resolve the argument by nuking San Jose. The team that backs down will be the team that loves it more.

Threaten to resolve the argument by nuking San Jose. The team that backs down will be the team that loves it more.

Can't we just move the A's, then nuke Oakland? If we're going to lose a city here, let's pick the right one.

No, San Jose is very much the right one. At least Oakland is interesting.

Can't we just settle on nuking Richmond? I'm not sure anyone would even notice a change.

I was surprised to see the Raiders have now publicly expressed a desire to leave Oakland. What gives? Is Oakland like covered in rabies or something?

I think there's an NFL rule that the Raiders have to move every so often. Or something.

I've always been amused by the way people will toss out terms like "the Bay Area" like it was some small neighborhood or something. A friend of mine from the UK commented on this when visiting once. "Bay Area," he sneered. "It's the size of Wales!"

Though it now occurs to me that I may have mis-heard him; he might have been referring to Pablo Sandoval.

At least Oakland is interesting.

Interesting is the nicest possible thing you can say about Oakland. It's a crime-ridden dump.

Interesting is the nicest possible thing you can say about Oakland. It's a crime-ridden dump.

Except for all the parts that aren't, which are numerous.

Interesting is the nicest possible thing you can say about Oakland. It's a crime-ridden dump.

Except for all the parts that aren't, which are numerous.

Yes, there may actually be a "there" there now.

Interesting is the nicest possible thing you can say about Oakland. It's a crime-ridden dump.

There are places in Oakland that only the very wealthy can afford to inhabit, and they do so in droves.

All the Oaklandites who still want to see their team can take Caltrans or something, I couldn't believe how many transit agencies there are out there.

I think Caltran is the state department of transportation.

(c) the newcomer pays the existing club $100,000 plus half of any previous indemnification to invade the territory;

Did the Giant's ever pay the A's the amounts dictated by the MLB constitution?

And if not, shouldn't their "rights" be forfeit?

(c) the newcomer pays the existing club $100,000 plus half of any previous indemnification to invade the territory;

Did the Giant's ever pay the A's the amounts dictated by the MLB constitution?

And if not, shouldn't their "rights" be forfeit?

Um, the Giants arrived in 1958, the A's in 1968, who should have indemnified whom?

Since it was shared territory in the MLB constitution until the As offered to cede it in a very classy move, it clearly appears the greedy shyster Giants forgot to pay the bill.

You know the simplest solution is one of the oldest American solutions. Gerrymandering. If they want a team them simply redraw the map.

Can't we just settle on nuking Richmond? I'm not sure anyone would even notice a change.

I got propositioned by a toothless woman who looked like she was 80 (but was probably only 50) once in Richmond. So, I agree with your statement.

So's your mom.

I think this proposal is based on the notion that everyone would want the best possible outcome for both teams. What is "fair." But the Giants don't really have any reason to help the A's, so there's no reason for them to open their books to the proposed neutral party who would determine how much revenue they derive from Santa Clara County. If they do decide they are willing to let the A's move there, then it's in their best interest to grandstand and wail about how much it will cost them, so that they can get as big a compensation package as possible from the A's. If they don't get enough to make it worth their while, then they can just sit tight and hope the A's will eventually move out of the Bay Area altogether, which would be an even better outcome for the Giants as the Bay Area would then be the largest and wealthiest single-team market in MLB.

I think this proposal is based on the notion that everyone would want the best possible outcome for both teams. What is "fair." But the Giants don't really have any reason to help the A's, so there's no reason for them to open their books to the proposed neutral party who would determine how much revenue they derive from Santa Clara County. If they do decide they are willing to let the A's move there, then it's in their best interest to grandstand and wail about how much it will cost them, so that they can get as big a compensation package as possible from the A's. If they don't get enough to make it worth their while, then they can just sit tight and hope the A's will eventually move out of the Bay Area altogether, which would be an even better outcome for the Giants as the Bay Area would then be the largest and wealthiest single-team market in MLB.

Of course if they follow your strategy, the Giants face a big risk of MLB just steamrolling them, and declaring the Bay Area join territory by a vote of 29-1.

Of course if they follow your strategy, the Giants face a big risk of MLB just steamrolling them, and declaring the Bay Area join territory by a vote of 29-1.

Yes. It's in the Giants' enlightened self-interest to work reasonably and cooperatively with the A's and come up with a settlement that everyone can live with. Which is what, I suspect, has been going on all along. Selig's Blue Ribbon Committee probably had one and only one task: come up with the right number to be written on the check to the Giants.

Selig vows to stay in office until he can get this resolved. That is why he is signing extension after saying numerous times that is last contract would be it.

Selig vows to stay in office until he can get this resolved. That is why he is signing extension after saying numerous times that is last contract would be it.

Also, he has to resolve the Theo Epstein compensation which should take at least 8-10 years.

Snapper and Steve, I agree that this will likely end with the Giants getting paid and the A's moving to San Jose. However, it appears that the A's have by far the bigger hurdle to surmount. From the article:

either league can move into a territory belonging to a club in the other league, so long as (3/4 of the affected league's team consent

So this means the Giants just have to convince four other NL teams to vote with them in order to block a move. Why would those teams do that? Maybe they don't like the idea of MLB imposing something like this on them in the future. The Giants are a wealthy, well-run franchise. The A's are a poor, badly run franchise. I would guess that the Giants have quite a bit more influence among the ownership.

Anyway, like I said I do basically agree that this will end similarly to the Expos' move to Washington, I just think the Giants have by far the better negotiating position and no particular reason to be very cooperative or look for a "fair" solution, because the status quo is working fine for them and the worst possible outcome from the point of view of most people (A's moving out of the Bay Area) doesn't hurt them at all, in fact helps them.

Maybe they don't like the idea of MLB imposing something like this on them in the future. The Giants are a wealthy, well-run franchise. The A's are a poor, badly run franchise. I would guess that the Giants have quite a bit more influence among the ownership.

Yeah, but they want the A's to stop sucking up revenue sharing $.

The Mets, Dodgers and Cubs already have the proposed shared market situation. None of the other markets could possibly support a 2nd team.

I don't think they'll be sympathetic to the Giants.

So this means the Giants just have to convince four other NL teams to vote with them in order to block a move. Why would those teams do that? Maybe they don't like the idea of MLB imposing something like this on them in the future. The Giants are a wealthy, well-run franchise. The A's are a poor, badly run franchise. I would guess that the Giants have quite a bit more influence among the ownership.

First, which NL teams would be worries about this being imposed on them in the future? The NY, LA, and Chicago teams already share their territorial rights with their respective AL counterparts.

Second, as to who other owners are likely to side with, the new CBA says the A's get revenue sharing if they stay in Oakland but get cut off if they move. That's a pretty obvious incentive, likely written by the owners themselves, for them to approve the move.