Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

BN: A Proposal To Break The Territorial-Rights Logjam Between The A’s And The Giants

With a doff of the chapeau to Mr. Calcaterra, a modest proposal indeed:

All of the two-team territories but one share the same counties: the Yankees and Mets; the White Sox and Cubs; and the Dodgers and Angels. Only the Giants and A’s split the counties surrounding their home cities. The A’s territory includes Alameda and Contra Costa counties; the Giants’ territory includes San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Monterey and Marin counties, “plus Santa Clara County with respect to another major league team.” San Jose is in Santa Clara county.

The Non-Catching Molina (sjs1959) Posted: January 11, 2012 at 01:52 PM | 27 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: athletics, business, giants

Reader Comments and Retorts

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.

   1. Steve Treder Posted: January 11, 2012 at 02:05 PM (#4034305)
This is completely rational and sensible. Therefore, it will never happen.
   2. The District Attorney Posted: January 11, 2012 at 02:50 PM (#4034349)
Threaten to resolve the argument by nuking San Jose. The team that backs down will be the team that loves it more.
   3. UCCF Posted: January 11, 2012 at 03:00 PM (#4034361)
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.
   4. Flynn Posted: January 11, 2012 at 03:03 PM (#4034363)
No, San Jose is very much the right one. At least Oakland is interesting.
   5. ?Donde esta Dagoberto Campaneris? Posted: January 11, 2012 at 03:07 PM (#4034367)
Can't we just settle on nuking Richmond? I'm not sure anyone would even notice a change.
   6. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 11, 2012 at 03:18 PM (#4034376)
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?
   7. Addison Russell T. Davies (chris h.) Posted: January 11, 2012 at 03:27 PM (#4034385)
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.
   8. UCCF Posted: January 11, 2012 at 03:32 PM (#4034390)
At least Oakland is interesting.

Interesting is the nicest possible thing you can say about Oakland. It's a crime-ridden dump.
   9. Flynn Posted: January 11, 2012 at 03:37 PM (#4034393)
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.
   10. The Non-Catching Molina (sjs1959) Posted: January 11, 2012 at 03:47 PM (#4034402)
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.
   11. The Piehole of David Wells Posted: January 11, 2012 at 04:14 PM (#4034444)
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.
   12. Lance Posted: January 11, 2012 at 04:34 PM (#4034467)
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.
   13. Addison Russell T. Davies (chris h.) Posted: January 11, 2012 at 04:45 PM (#4034490)
I think Caltran is the state department of transportation.
   14. valuearbitrageur Posted: January 11, 2012 at 04:50 PM (#4034497)
(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?
   15. The Non-Catching Molina (sjs1959) Posted: January 11, 2012 at 05:47 PM (#4034567)
(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?
   16. valuearbitrageur Posted: January 12, 2012 at 12:23 AM (#4034854)
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.
   17. McCoy Posted: January 12, 2012 at 12:37 AM (#4034859)
You know the simplest solution is one of the oldest American solutions. Gerrymandering. If they want a team them simply redraw the map.
   18. tshipman Posted: January 12, 2012 at 12:41 AM (#4034861)
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.
   19. McCoy Posted: January 12, 2012 at 12:57 AM (#4034867)
So's your mom.
   20. Ginger Nut Posted: January 12, 2012 at 08:50 AM (#4034951)
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.
   21. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 12, 2012 at 09:05 AM (#4034962)
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.
   22. Steve Treder Posted: January 12, 2012 at 11:45 AM (#4035095)
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.
   23. McCoy Posted: January 12, 2012 at 11:52 AM (#4035106)
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.
   24. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 12, 2012 at 11:56 AM (#4035113)
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.
   25. Ginger Nut Posted: January 12, 2012 at 01:21 PM (#4035224)
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.
   26. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 12, 2012 at 01:29 PM (#4035242)
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.
   27. Danny Posted: January 12, 2012 at 01:34 PM (#4035249)
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.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Dingbat_Charlie
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogSale of Baseball Prospectus
(377 - 6:29am, Nov 19)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogMichael Wilbon Weighs In On Jacob deGrom With Worst Baseball Take Of Year | MLB | NESN.com
(21 - 6:28am, Nov 19)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogMLB rumors: How Dodgers' Dave Roberts could replace Giants' Bruce Bochy
(7 - 1:30am, Nov 19)
Last: phredbird

Newsblog2018 Cy Young Award winners | MLB.com
(53 - 12:38am, Nov 19)
Last: Booey

NewsblogOT - November* 2018 College Football thread
(301 - 12:30am, Nov 19)
Last: AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(2314 - 10:54pm, Nov 18)
Last: Chokeland Bill

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread (2018-19 season kickoff edition)
(2530 - 10:16pm, Nov 18)
Last: PJ Martinez

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (November 2018)
(456 - 9:35pm, Nov 18)
Last: Count Vorror Rairol Mencoon (CoB)

NewsblogMLB Trade Rumors: Phillies 'Expecting to Spend Money' in Pursuit of Bryce Harper, Manny Machado
(10 - 9:30pm, Nov 18)
Last: there isn't anything to do in buffalo but 57i66135

NewsblogHere's why the Cardinals need Bryce Harper
(64 - 9:14pm, Nov 18)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

NewsblogReport: Dodgers' Kenley Jansen to Undergo Heart Surgery, Expected to Return for Spring Training
(3 - 7:56pm, Nov 18)
Last: Jose is an Absurd Force of Nature

NewsblogOT: Soccer Thread (2018-19 season begins!)
(1231 - 4:31pm, Nov 18)
Last: AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther

NewsblogQ&A: Damon Minor on Giants' Steven Duggar, Chris Shaw, Aramis Garcia
(3 - 4:26pm, Nov 18)
Last: base ball chick

NewsblogIndians' Trevor Bauer pleads his own Cy Young case using a spreadsheet on Twitter
(30 - 4:12pm, Nov 18)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)

NewsblogPosnanski: Baseball 100 Rules
(283 - 2:07pm, Nov 18)
Last: Rennie's Tenet

Page rendered in 0.3046 seconds
46 querie(s) executed