A good fall-back destination for the A's if the San Jose impasse can't be solved. It's not quite as affluent as Portland, but at least it has a minor-league ballpark that can be enlarged and used for a few years until an MLB-level park is ready.

if the San Jose impasse can't be solved.

With every passing month, quarter, and year that the Blue Ribbon Committee doesn't wave its wand, my doubt becomes stronger that the San Jose impasse will be solved. The issue has never been anything other than how enormous the check is that would be handed over to the Giants, and who signs the check. The A's aren't willing to spend that kind of money, and they don't have enough supporters among the rest of ownership to subsidize it.

The issue has never been anything other than how enormous the check is that would be handed over to the Giants, and who signs the check. The A's aren't willing to spend that kind of money, and they don't have enough supporters among the rest of ownership to subsidize it.

The rest of the league is subsidizing the A's to the tune of ~$30 million per year through revenue sharing until they find a new home--at which point they get cut off. At some point, one would think the owners of the 14 big-market teams that pay into revenue sharing would either help pay off the Giants or use their voting power to force the Giants' hand. And I doubt the smaller market teams are worried about setting any type of precedent.

And I don't see any advantage Sacramento offers over Oakland.

If your plans is to move to San Jose, and then finally pick Sacramento. You are doing something wrong.

At some point, one would think the owners of the 14 big-market teams that pay into revenue sharing would either help pay off the Giants or use their voting power to force the Giants' hand.

One would think that. But when is "some point" going to arrive? How many years have they been stuck at this impasse now?

Too many. But this is the first year that revenue-sharing clause (cutting the A's off if they move) has been in the CBA.

Trying to read the tea leaves here...

The A's have talked about presenting the issue at owners meetings and then pulled it from the Agenda, my guess is that if they pushed for a vote on giving them rights to San Jose with no compensation to the league or SF, there would be an additional proposal on the agenda that would give them the rights if and only if they paid 50M plus to both the Giants and the league. And rest assured the second would pass much more easily than the first.

I think the other owners would love to stop paying money to the A's, but I think the consensus among the teams paying into that fund is that the A's problem is less Oakland and more Wolff, that with better ownership they would not be a burden on the league, and they would prefer Wolff to sell then move the team then vice versa.

Sacramento is a pipe dream, yes they could support a team, they have had easily the best drawing minor league team over the last ten years, but public money just isn't there and Wolff is not going to get what he seems to be looking for.

I plan to attract Kate Hudson in the next year or two...

Ok this isn't exactly related but since it's an A's thread check this out. (I didn't see it in linked on the main BBTF site) Also note the most viewed articles linked on the right of this story.

Cook's bittersweet all star experience.

I think the consensus among the teams paying into that fund is that the A's problem is less Oakland and more Wolff

If that's so, the consensus among the teams is spot-on correct.

Step 1: move out of Sacramento.

Sacramento is, I believe, one of the largest cities without a MLB team. Of course, there's also a reason for that. Only chance in slightest (and I do mean slightest) would be if they could woo the A's, which won't happen because the Athletics will never have their "situation" resolved.

Well, you're not going to push out Wolff without an outside negotiator like a bankruptcy court saying he has to sell the team. Then again, if he sold today, Wolff could probably get as much as the Padres did if you promise to let the new owner move to San Jose.

Does revenue sharing work such that kicking the A's off the dole saves the owners money, or do they simply get replaced by another team?

Wolf is pretty old. There are lots of things that could push him out... most of which might be illeagal, but at his age itd be hard to prove anything.

If the A's moved to Sacramento there would at least be one marginal reason to go to Sacramento.

Shredder, as I understand the CBA the revenue sharing/tax is the same regardless of who it goes to. So the teams paying the tax have no vested interest in moving a team from "receiving money" to the middle group. Teams in that middle group might have an interest in that, but for the teams paying a tax there is no change and no incentive.

What they would like is to see more teams jump up into the higher revenue group. They want to see LAD and NYM packing their stadiums, they want to see SDP and PIT pumping up their awesome new parks with packed houses. What they find less than thrilling is Wolff's plan to build the smallest capacity park in the majors in a problematic area with lots of drama surrounding the process.

A good fall-back destination for the A's if the San Jose impasse can't be solved. It's not quite as affluent as Portland, but at least it has a minor-league ballpark that can be enlarged and used for a few years until an MLB-level park is ready.

Access roads would be a severe problem for upgrading the Sacramento minor league park to a MLB park.

Not really Bads, it right on top of the two major freeways, You'd need a new parking structure attached to new off-ramps, but that is trivial compared to the work of rebuilding the park to ML standards.

A major sports team moving twice, then moving again, to Sacramento? That's unpossible!

if the San Jose impasse can't be solved.

The San Jose Impasse sounds like a team in a lesser-known sport, like professional frisbee. (No, I'm not kidding. There really is such a thing!)

Not really Bads, it right on top of the two major freeways, You'd need a new parking structure attached to new off-ramps, but that is trivial compared to the work of rebuilding the park to ML standards.

What are you going to displace in that area for the ramps? The river and the bridge limit the options. I suppose you might be able to come in from the southwest, but there isn't that much land around the current stadium, especially when parking and and outfield seating need to be added. But yes, upgrading the stadium is a bigger issue.

There is a lot of underused industrial space around there, especially between the park and the river. The current onramp/offramp to I-80 that passes in front of Raley field could easily be built up to handle increased traffic from the east bound 80. And then a feeder on the river side from I-5 and westbound 80 would be easy enough.

Looking at the Satellite photo it is amazing how much empty space there is around that park. Essentially nothing to the southeast of any permanence or value.

Looking at the Satellite photo it is amazing how much empty space there is around that park

Is that area in flood plain?

Traderdave, well generally speaking no, the park and the area around it are landfilled to the level of the levee's on the river. Could they flood? Yes but at that point there would be a lot worse flooding in a lot of other places.

The issue has never been anything other than how enormous the check is that would be handed over to the Giants, and who signs the check. The A's aren't willing to spend that kind of money, and they don't have enough supporters among the rest of ownership to subsidize it.

It seems like Plan A for the Giants is to keep the A's in Oakland or, best of all, get the A's to leave the area. Plan B would be to collect a large check.

Knowing MLB's rules, I'm guessing there are still hangups, like the fact the Atlanta Braves own the territorial rights to Sacramento somehow.

I think Kevin Johnson and Giants fans (and their brooms) are the only people who think Sacramento would be better for the A's than San Jose.

Man, leave to MLB to deny a team a move because they want to move FARTHER AWAY.

It seems like Plan A for the Giants is to keep the A's in Oakland or, best of all, get the A's to leave the area. Plan B would be to collect a large check.

Uh ... yeah. How fabulously large a check has been the only question the Giants might ponder.

I think Kevin Johnson and Giants fans (and their brooms) are the only people who think Sacramento would be better for the A's than San Jose.

Oh, knock it off. Kevin Johnson is just saying what it makes sense for him to say. And no Giants fans, with brooms or not, have ever asserted that Sacramento would be better for the A's than San Jose.

The more interesting question, practical politics aside, is whether the A's in San Jose vs. Oakland vs. Sacramento would be better for the MLB enterprise.

I think Kevin Johnson and Giants fans (and their brooms) are the only people who think Sacramento would be better for the A's than San Jose.

It certainly isn't better, but it's probably more feasible, given the Giants' steadfast refusal to give up San Jose. With San Jose an impossibility, you're left with either staying in Oakland, where getting a new ballpark is unlikely at best, or moving to Sacramento. If I owned the A's, I'd prefer the latter to remaining in an aging, now aesthetically awful stadium.

If I owned the A's, I'd prefer the latter to remaining in an aging, now aesthetically awful stadium.

I doubt very much you would. The point of owning a baseball team is to someday sell that baseball team. Moving the team to Sacramento is a death sentence - now you're locked in for the next 30 years in a tiny, non-wealthy market that isn't going to grow. As long as the team is in Oakland you at least can sell the opportunity to move it to San Jose (or wherever), just as the last ownership group did. Or that someday someway you're going to get a new stadium in Oakland or the nether regions of Silicon Valley (Fremont et. al).

Why is San Jose an impossibility? Territory is something MLB granted, it can be taken away or modified as need be.

Has anyone actually been asking: "Is there an uglier city with worse problems than Oakland that we can move to?"

Tripon, Yes, but every time territory has been transferred from one team to another there has been money involved.
(and no the A's never "transferred" rights to SF, they simply acknowledged that SF had those rights to begin with).

It will take a 3/4 vote of the owners to transfer the rights, the owners will never do that unless both teams consent to the terms.
The owners will NEVER vote to remove rights from a team without their consent.

And no Giants fans, with brooms or not, have ever asserted that Sacramento would be better for the A's than San Jose.

In every thread about the A's moving to San Jose, Tom claims that it's against the A's interests because it's "smallest capacity park in the majors in a problematic area" and would be a "financial disaster." And here is in this thread, singing the praises of Sacramento.

But, yeah, I'm sure no Giants fan would ever argue that Sacramento would be better for the A's than San Jose. For the lulz:

Steve Treder: Yes, many times. I've advocated many times that if the A's must move away from Oakland (which they shouldn't), then the best place for them to move would be Sacramento, not San Jose.

Steve Treder: The only reason a new ballpark hasn't been built in Oakland is because every succeeding A's ownership wants the taxpayers to foot the bill, it isn't because Oakland isn't a very satisfactory location for the franchise to remain. Although, as I've said a million times, in the long run Sacramento would be an even better location.

Steve Treder: I've said a gajillion times that the best long-term location for the A's, for the sake of the individual franchise and for the sake of MLB, would be Sacramento, and the team could be marketed as a general Northern California/Reno regional franchise....In the short term, the A's franchise is better off in the Bay Area (whether in Oakland or in San Jose) than in Sacramento. But 20+ years out, the Sacramento location will likely be the sweeter one. The Bay Area is fast approaching its effective population ceiling, while Sacramento and its environs will be on the fast growth path for decades to come.

Steve Treder: I've said many times that I think in the long run Sacramento is the best option for the A's. Moving to the South Bay wouldn't solve their fundamental problem, which is sharing the immediate Bay Area fan base with the Giants, who have all the advantages. Whether they play in Oakland or San Jose, they're still slicing up the same size pie, and the Giants have the bigger knife. Yes, moving to Sacramento would sacrifice the South Bay to the Giants, but the A's would be able to retain their Pleasanton/Walnut Creek Contra Costa base, and get all of the rapidly-growing northern Central Valley to boot. If they were based in Sacramento and marketed themselves as a regional franchise (as the Rockies or Cardinals do), cultivating fans in Reno and Fresno and Chico, I think their long-term viability would be pretty solid.

Steve Treder: The East Bay is a vibrant, still growing metro area; I've always found the poor-Oakland argument to be pretty weak. Oakland is a fine site for an MLB franchise. But the real growing dyanmo over the next half-century will be Sacramento, and the corridor from Oakland/Concord to Sacramento. I've said a gazillion times that there is no compelling reason to relocate the A's (other than owner greed, based on wanting taxpayers to fund a new stadium someplace), but if the A's are to be relocated, Sacramento would clearly be the rest place to go.

Steve Treder: My personal opinion is that while San Jose would make marginally more sense as a home for the A's than Oakland does, from the point of view of MLB I don't see that it makes much difference; either way MLB is drawing from the Bay Area market with two franchises. My opinion, expressed in an earlier thread, is that the site that makes the most long-term sense for MLB and the A's is Sacramento.

And this one is great:

Tom's broom: This is a somewhat stupid article, but not as stupid as the A's desire to move to San Jose. So you wanna move from a city where you are somewhat popular to a city where you are distinctly the 2nd most popular team, at the same time making it extremely difficult for current fans to get to your games. San Jose has a lot of things going for it but it is notoriously difficult to get to from the rest of the bay area due to traffic and lack of good transit systems. If the A's had a brain they would be building a stadium in Castro Valley, which splits the difference of the three most populous counties in the bay area, and throws in easy acces from San Juaquin county as well.

BBTF Giants fans have a storied history of concern trolling an A's move to San Jose.

I am more of an NBA fan than an A's fan, as are many. KJ expended much of his political capital the past year and a half on basketball, trying to get a new NBA-quality arena built in that area of the city for the Kings. It was to the point where the usual situation was upside down: He was begging to get taxpayer money involved in that proposal, while the Kings' owners were vacillating.

The Maloofs have royally screwed up and blew that opportunity, the team still sucks, and their finances are weak because of the economic downturn in Vegas. Their only future in the league is to sell out; either to new owners locally (the city doesn't have any candidates) or nationally (Seattle has a guy who's ultra-confidently getting an arena built for the team he'll eventually be owning).

So to me this A's proposal is a fallback to fill the void, with no clear plan to get the Athletics to move to Sacramento. It has nothing to do with Raley Field or whoever owns/operates the River Cats.

Interesting stuff Danny...

a couple of things...first, I live in Sacramento, walking distance from Raley Field, so yes I have a bias towards moving to Sacramento...(Treder by the way lives in the south bay and always has IIRC)

second, I grew up in the east bay and have seen far more A's games in my life than Giants games, if the Giants are my more favored team now it is directly related to the actions of the A's ownership over the last 20+ years.

But setting all that aside, I strongly believe that the absolute best place for the A's long term, and it isn't really close, is somewhere in Alameda County. Give them a good park in a good location and they would pack in fans just as easily as the Giants do.

But, yeah, I'm sure no Giants fan would ever argue that Sacramento would be better for the A's than San Jose.

I thought about saying something, but figured Danny would take it since it was so obviously not true. Either way, Sacramento is never going to happen. It's just too tiny, there's no corporate business. The major industries are farming and state government. Sexy. There's no money there. That's all MLB really cares about. Giants fans should probably switch their allegiance to Portland, it makes more sense than Sacramento.

I can see the A's in Oakland for a few more seasons in the current stadium but I do think we're lurching toward a solution. It seems to matter, sort of, to Selig, but more importantly Wolff is eventually going to give up and either sell the team to someone who will build a stadium in Oakland or to someone with more juice to get the move to San Jose. I'd guess a big hold up is that the other owners don't like Wolff - they know he's purely a carpet bagger, and while many of them are too the way he's done it is just so grasping and obvious. You're supposed to do this stuff behind closed doors, not so openly in the media as he has, he's reminding everyone that this is actually a business that's really only here to make money and that's bad. I doubt he has much clout. If a Magic Johnson with the Dodgers situation came along, different story. I have no idea who that person would be however. Probably a tech guy.

Or maybe Wolff i.e. Selig somehow does get it done. Who knows.

But they ain't moving to Sacramento.

[Steve Treder:] And no Giants fans, with brooms or not, have ever asserted that Sacramento would be better for the A's than San Jose.

I had to read this twice to make sure that I had read it correctly. I still can't believe Steve Treder expected it to go unrefuted.

I grew up in the east bay and have seen far more A's games in my life than Giants games, if the Giants are my more favored team now it is directly related to the actions of the A's ownership over the last 20+ years.

Then you're a traitor and I don't care about your opinion.

Giants fans should probably switch their allegiance to Portland

Yes, if they're going be transparently @##$%#ish then it should at least be remotely credible.

I'd guess a big hold up is that the other owners don't like Wolff - they know he's purely a carpet bagger, and while many of them are too the way he's done it is just so grasping and obvious. You're supposed to do this stuff behind closed doors, not so openly in the media as he has, he's reminding everyone that this is actually a business that's really only here to make money and that's bad. I doubt he has much clout. If a Magic Johnson with the Dodgers situation came along, different story. I have no idea who that person would be however. Probably a tech guy.

I don't know. You can have a situation like the NFL where most owners think "Being a team owner is a great honor and a great responsibility", and faceless corporate suits are discouraged from taking part. Or you can go in the opposite direction and have teams become part of the investment portfolio of holding companies. MLB seems to be struggling against the rise of the faceless corporate scenario, with repeated instances of the "universally hated shyster vulture buys team, sneaks out of town with massive profit" story and the "team cuts budget, becomes moneymaking part of corporate conglomerate" story (Braves, Blue Jays). Teams are just too valuable now for even the richest people to buy one as a vanity project. At some point obvious carpet baggers will become the majority of owners.

You can have a situation like the NFL where most owners think "Being a team owner is a great honor and a great responsibility", and faceless corporate suits are discouraged from taking part.

Isn't it actually harder for an NFL owner to differentiate his/her team than an MLB owner? Most of the money is League TV money right?

Right, NFL ownership is supposed to involve one undisputed controlling shareholder (exception: the Packers). This makes it almost impossible to sell the teams now that they're worth a billion dollars, and leads to frustrating scenarios where the patriarch who's owned the team for 45 years divides ownership among his children, some of whom want to sell their stakes but can't.

Teams are just too valuable now for even the richest people to buy one as a vanity project. At some point obvious carpet baggers will become the majority of owners.

Probably - that's what's happened in the NBA. Huge owner turnover over the last 10 years, and all of them have seen the team as investment first, beacon of nostalgia second. That being said, Wolff doesn't actually own the entire Oakland A's - he just owns one of the larger pieces and is the group's mouthpiece. Magic Johnson doesn't own the Dodgers - he has a very tiny slice, but he's a public mouthpiece. That's why he's there - to do PR for the new owners, both with fans and among other owners and sponsors who want to be friends with Magic. If a Google guy comes along and puts $25 million into an acquisition team, he becomes the PR focus. I'm speaking more from that point of view - it matters much more if a public figure can waltz into the Owners Meeting to drum up support than some stranger who everyone knows really just wants to build shopping malls. That's why we have PR after all - to deflect attention from what we really want. The rest of the ownership are probably carpet baggers, but as long as one guy is famous, he's the guy everyone's going to focus on if you spin it right.

I'd guess a big hold up is that the other owners don't like Wolff - they know he's purely a carpet bagger, and while many of them are too the way he's done it is just so grasping and obvious. You're supposed to do this stuff behind closed doors, not so openly in the media as he has, he's reminding everyone that this is actually a business that's really only here to make money and that's bad. I doubt he has much clout.

I dunno, Wolff seems to be saying the same things Selig, himself, is saying: "The one given everybody believes is that Oakland needs a new stadium," Selig said. "The last time I was there, I probably shouldn't say this, but I'll say it anyway, it reminded me of County Stadium and Shea Stadium, and that's not a compliment, in either case. ... You can't ask people to compete if they have a stadium that doesn't produce any kind of revenue to give them a chance to compete. So that's a given."

Talking of Carpetbaggers and shrewd businessmen...The other owners know that getting rights to San Jose will at the stroke of a pen increase the value of the A's franchise by something like $200M. These shrewd businessman will support that...for a price...

I dunno, Wolff seems to be saying the same things Selig, himself, is saying: "The one given everybody believes is that Oakland needs a new stadium," Selig said. "The last time I was there, I probably shouldn't say this, but I'll say it anyway, it reminded me of County Stadium and Shea Stadium, and that's not a compliment, in either case. ... You can't ask people to compete if they have a stadium that doesn't produce any kind of revenue to give them a chance to compete. So that's a given."

Sure, but of course Selig's going to say that - he wants the A's to get a new stadium, for financial and personal reasons (Wolff's his friend). Re: the other owners, the A's are asking for another team's territorial rights. It always easier to help someone out if you like them, regardless of financial considerations. That's just human nature, especially if you're being asked to potentially wound a peer who you may like more than him (i.e. the Giants and their ownership). I don't know if that's the case - I'm just speculating.

Talking of Carpetbaggers and shrewd businessmen...The other owners know that getting rights to San Jose will at the stroke of a pen increase the value of the A's franchise by something like $200M. These shrewd businessman will support that...for a price...

So in other words, you agree that the best long term location for the A's franchise is San Jose? :-) The value would only go up because the revenue potential would go up, and I'm hard pressed to see anything in Sacramento or Alameda County matching that.

Squash, no I actually think, and have stated here, that the best place for them long term is Alameda County.

But they have spent the better part of ten years burning bridges there. If they put they effort into getting a stadium built there instead of SJ the increase in value would be even greater than the $200m.

The thing is, Wolff isn't just a carpetbagger, he is a cut rate one. Regardless of how much profit he could make his primary imperative is to not invest any more than he already has, the attraction of SJ is that they appear willing to foot the bill for his stadium. Anything in Alameda County would require a substantial investment by the team.

I can see the A's in Oakland for a few more seasons in the current stadium but I do think we're lurching toward a solution. It seems to matter, sort of, to Selig, but more importantly Wolff is eventually going to give up and either sell the team to someone who will build a stadium in Oakland or to someone with more juice to get the move to San Jose.

Just a couple weeks ago there was a bit in the S.F. Chronicle, describing how some Oakland businesspeople (I believe associated with Chlorox) made a statement that they were interested in buying the team to keep it in Oakland. Lew Wolff's response was something like, "you can't buy what isn't for sale." D-bag.

Lew Wolff's response was something like, "you can't buy what isn't for sale."

"My father says everything is negotiable." --Francis Buxton

But seriously, if you're an owner who sees his team as a pure income-generating investment -- and you're currently generating plenty of income -- why not just drag your feet year after year until someone forces your hand and makes you move or sell? Seems like there's little incentive for Wolff to do anything other than business as usual.

The thing is, Wolff isn't just a carpetbagger, he is a cut rate one. Regardless of how much profit he could make his primary imperative is to not invest any more than he already has, the attraction of SJ is that they appear willing to foot the bill for his stadium. Anything in Alameda County would require a substantial investment by the team.

No, the the A's would be paying $400M-$500M to build the stadium. San Jose would only be selling them the land for a discount. The A's don't want to move to San Jose because San Jose is giving them a sweetheart deal; they could get a discount on land from Oakland or Sacramento. Rather, as is obvious to everyone except a couple Giants fans on BBTF, they want to move to San Jose because it's a much more lucrative location.

Danny, that is flat wrong. SJ was their third choice after plans in Oakland and further south in Alameda county fell through because of the lack of public funds.

Not mentioned in the "A's will pay to build the park" articles is that part of the deal is that the A's get additional real estate to develop as they will, recouping a big chunk of that $400M+. And as for being a more lucrative location...you have probably never tried to get into the southbay in the afternoon. They are moving into an area that might have a certain amount of wealth but it is essentially isolated from the rest of the area. And in particular it isolated from their existing fans. The only area that has a reasonable drive into San Jose is along the peninsula, which is hard core Giants country.

Danny's post #35 is an all-time great bbtf smackdown.

I don't really have a rooting interest here. There should be two competitive franchises in the Bay Area, but I'd rather not see either Lew Wolff (whom I do not like) or Giants ownership (who are acting like dicks) get a huge financial windfall from the process.

And I like the city of Oakland. Eh. Mostly, I think post #35 was funny.