User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.7942 seconds
50 querie(s) executed
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. The importance of being Ernest Riles Posted: October 02, 2012 at 01:28 AM (#4250661)Shhhhhhhh.
These ninjas wear green & gold.
Not if they win the next two.
$15 for View Level tickets behind the plate? Cripes, those aren't even bad seats. I'm officially ordering all Bay Area Primates to pick up some A's playoff tickets for themselves.
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.
Now everybody do The Bernie before it becomes completely annoying and played out.
(half in jest, half not)
Considering the relatively inexpensive tickets and the attention they're getting locally as a Cinderella team, I wouldn't be surprised if they sell out fairly easily. There are definitely seats available for people on a budget, and you might even get some Giants fans crossing the Bay considering Giants tickets are going to be pricey and hard to get.
Plus you know, a lot of casual fans just root for both teams.
Still, Oakland started the year as a team without hope - eliminated by the time spring training started as far as many were concerned. Crowds of 10k were common in April. How has it been now though, playing Texas with a shot at clinching a playoff berth? Right when the excitement should be peaking? Er... 21,162. What about on the weekend? 16k/21k/21k. Ugh. For comparison the Jays, who have been out of it for months, had 25/36/31k this past weekend (yes, against the Yankees, but still that was for a team fighting for last place) and 12k for Monday's game against the Twins. The previous weekend (against Boston) the Jays out did the A's as well with 21/27/21k. So either Boston/NY are better attractions than winning or the A's fans really need to wake up and see that they have a good team.
Meanwhile Tampa has seen 2 games with 20k+ this month, just 3 in August and just 5 over 30k all year - 3 vs NY in April, a game vs Miami and an April game vs Minnesota (???).
If any 2 teams are to move I'd put Oakland and Tampa at the top of the list. Put those teams in Montreal and you'd see 30-40k a game this year (check attendance in 1994 when the Expos got people to believe in them).
No offense, but no one's asking you. Go try to steal someone else's team.
And not to rain on the A's parade, but I'm contractually obliged to note that the play-in game is not the damn playoffs.
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.
Pretty much everyone in March: Why doesn't Billy Beane's sh1t work in the regular season?
I lost my faith for a bit there. I wrote the team off after the 9 game losing streak, honestly. And then...BRANDON MOSS!!!!! sent Kila and his newborn infants ruthlessly back to the minor leagues. Thanks to Kila for taking one for the team.
It's all too easy for Selig and MLB to interpret things that way and run up another round of expansion...
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Both the consensus and MLB say that it counts as the playoffs, I just believe strongly that it shouldn't. It's not the playoffs its the interstitials.
It's all too easy for Selig and MLB to interpret things that way and run up another round of expansion...
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. Before so much of their revenue was local, I think teams were willing to take some upfront money in exchange for dividing up future revenues smaller. I don't see expansion fees for a place like Portland would justify that, though.
Games in April actually count.
Sincerely,
Shredder
Records since April 27th:
Texas: 78-62
Oakland: 81-58
Angels: 83-57
Undone by one really shitty month. As much as it pains me to say it, I'd love to see the A's beat out the Rangers and then have the Rangers go down in the wildcard game.
And thanks to everyone for their congratulations and well wishes.
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Balfour was electric last night. Everything looked like so much fun; wish I could have been there.
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.
That's just bonkers. What a crazy year.
AS someone who's three favorite teams are the Nationals, A's, and Orioles, I kind of don't know what to do with myself.
If they get a check for the play-in game, it's a playoff. If no check, then it's game 163, regular season.
I have to admit I ignored the A's in April & May. They were ON PAPER a AAA team by design. 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.
I think so. Melvin has had a very short leash the last week or so with starters.
I think it has to be a postseason game, because it'll typically be played by teams with records more than a game apart, and the winner will sometimes still be behind the loser in the regular-season standings. That's a perfectly fine postseason outcome, less so for a Game 163.
What I'm worried about is that player records will start to include a separate line for "Division Play-In Game" or whatever they'll call it. Bad enough when it went from separate WS records to WS + LCS and then to three lines for every guy who played for a pennant winner. It's reaching the point where a single postseason line per year might be reasonable (as well as legible). Who's Who in Baseball is going to look ridiculous. And on B-Ref, one can get detailed game logs at a click anyway.
Everyone should have my worries, I realize :)
Agreed. Expansion happens only when it _increases_ the TV money. Like Mexico and New Jersey.
(CLEARLY you missed the postgame party)
*sigh*
HOW can anyone still think that stadium isn't a genuine problem? Notice the attendance...even when they win?
*smh*
Nevermind
Drink.
And good for the A's, I hope to see them at Yankee Stadium on October 7th. And not a day before!
It ain't the stadium, it's the region. 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. People remember the late 80s and think that's the normal condition, but the A's have always been a poor draw. The East Bay is small and there's a bunch else to do. They either need to build a new state of the art stadium in the East Bay to maximize revenues there and accept that they're still going to be on the league's dole even so, or move and reboot.
Uh, are you familiar with the history of the Coliseum? The stadium was very poorly maintained during the 70s.
Ignoring the Wally Haas era, when the A's drew when they won and drew decent crowds when they didn't, is pretty high up on the levels of parsing the statistics. The A's had a solid TV and radio presence, the Coliseum was well maintained, even pretty, and the A's ran a large payroll. Haas was rewarded for that with solid support when the team was good, and a respectable core when it wasn't.
The 70s? The stadium stank and was difficult to get to (BART wasn't really functional until the mid to late 70s, after the three-peat), the A's were barely on TV and their radio station was frickin' college radio. Finley was a baseball genius, but he was a parsimonious jerk.
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.
The 00s saw the A's blow off most of their free agents (admittedly this turned out to be wise more often than not), fail to win playoff series, and saw just as much whining over getting a taxpayer funded ballpark. In the meantime the Giants were a marketing/PR machine, won a pennant and contended for several seasons with the most transcendent player since Ruth, and played in that self-financed palace.
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 and the A's fail to spend more than the bare minimum on their team.
This reminds me a lot of Montreal, where MLB/ownership's failings got glossed over in favor of blaming the victim. I mean, seriously, there's a bunch else to do? Well #### it's a major metropolitan area, of course there are other things to do.
Get the A's some decent ownership, stop stonewalling Oakland and go from there. If they end up in San Jose then fine but Wolff is after an obvious money grab, he won't even take most of Oakland's proposals seriously unless they buy half of downtown's real estate as a gift.
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.
Schott and Hoffman never made any serious proposal to Oakland that involved the A's paying for their own stadium, which I would consider pretty much the starting point of good faith negotiations.
The city doesn't care about keeping the Raiders, it's the return of the Raiders that made the political climate so hostile to publicly financing a ballpark. I guess if Wally Haas bought it up in 1992 then he might have gotten something done, but nobody at the time thought the Coliseum was a dilapidated stadium. It was a pretty nice park back then.
Well that and their refusal to negotiate in good faith with Oakland, including the frankly laughable claim that Howard Terminal is not a suitable site for an MLB stadium when Wolff is willing to build a Triple A-sized stadium in San Jose (money grab!).
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.
Can you, without relying on assumption and opinion, actually back your claims? I do not think you can, and the most telling part of your entire argument is this:
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.
If you have to reach and construct your argument in such a fashion (conveniently cherry picking when to include the Giants, picking what is relevant based upon your opinion, etc), maybe it's time to re-evaluate your position?
Um HA HA HA HA HA?
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.
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.
The Giants decision to build a palace with their own money was entirely due to the land they were able to procure. If the City had told them - "go ahead - we'll hook you up with a great lot next to Candlestick!!!!" there would be no Pac Bell/AT&T Park because it would have been a silly investment. 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.
P.S. They voted on AT&T Park in 1996, ground broke on December 11, 1997. This statement is also, at best, iffy.
I didn't ignore it at all, it was literally the second thing I mentioned.
The A's situation is about them, their failures have been largely down to them and not to do with the Giants. Horace Stoneham didn't force Charlie Finley to put his games on Berkeley's college radio station. The A's were successful in the 80s because they got themselves on real TV and radio stations, Haas invested in the team and got good forward-thinking management, either he or the county spent some money and turned the Coliseum into a nice baseball park (the hand-operated out of town scoreboard being a particularly nice touch) and the A's won. A perfect recipe to get fans in the park and that's exactly what happened.
Has any proposal from the Athletics regarding anywhere in Oakland not involved Oakland and the county paying money for constructing a new ballpark or declaring eminent domain over half of South Oakland?
You're clearly correct in saying the city has and always has had bigger issues, but so has San Francisco and when the Giants convinced Willie Brown they weren't looking for a handout, he paved the way for AT&T Park. Nobody in Oakland really has that political capital (except maybe Ron Dellums 10-12 years ago?) but then nobody from the A's has come up with anything that involves a win-win situation like AT&T Park.
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.
Admittedly that might be a gamble worth making but I don't want them to, because I'm a Giants fan and also because I want Oakland to develop a core that people want to be in after dark that is bigger than Yoshi's.
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?
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.
The point of mentioning the Wally Haas years on their own was that it was the only time in past century the Athletics ran themselves like they weren't in a poorhouse, and they were successful and drew. You've been arguing that the A's systemically cannot compete in Oakland and must move. The only systemic problem with the A's is they've spent most of the past century being owned by ####### parasites.
Again, you fail at providing FACTS as opposed to OPINIONS.....care to try again?
For the last time, 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?
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.
You could have saved everyone a lot of time if you just led with this. 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.
-The stonewalling is a two way street. The team, particularly under Wolff, has never flaoted a serious proposal. All the ones I've read were obvious strawmen, such as the one North of 66th Ave that required more than 100 eminent domain cases & included a hefty chunk of public money. The city & county have never offered the A's much, for obvious reasons (Raiders hangover, lack of funds, etc etc). The team seems to believe they are indispensible to the city. The city won't pay up. Rinse/repeat.
-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.
And this:
IMO the Giants would be wise to let the A's move in exchange for a payoff. The South Bay is Giants country and most of those fans will not abandon the orange & black. SF will still continue to have significant corporate money, and that from the EB will migrate over the Bay Bridge. For all the money in the SB, ballgame schmoozing isn't in the Silicon Valley DNA the way it is in SF's finance and Oakland's transport industries.
The East Bay, however, is much more androgenous in its fandom. Those split caps from the '89 Series sold mostly in the East bay and most EB A's fans at least like the Giants. A large number of EBers commute to SF every day and feel a connection to both places. The same ties do not exist between EB and SB. A good number of A's fans in the East Bay would attend Giants games simply becuase it was the only easily available option, to a much greater degree than would happen with South Bay Giants fans, whose connection to SF is far stronger than to the EB. This is a perception only, impossible to measure and prove, but based on years of knowing the fan bases in question.
Except most of this is untrue:
Re "anyone": Apparently, I no longer fit in the category of "anyone". ;-)
Re "Big payday": It's well known they had top offers for guys like Beltre, Furcal, etc. in recent years. They landed Cespedes, which frankly was kind of a blow to the whole "cheap" owner idea. He also, publicly, stated he'll put as much money in as Billy wants. Sorry, but this is just rhetoric that holds no factual basis, only biased opinion.
Re Parking: Really? Take a look around the league at parking prices and get back to me on this one.
Re Concessions: You're either exaggerating, standing in the wrong line, or flat lying here. I have season tickets. I have NEVER waited that long for anything, not even 1 full inning. Sorry. There are available stands pretty much everywhere in the park. Also, a very relevant point to this is the obvious: if there are more people in attendance, more concession stands open. Sorry, but, duh.
Oh, unless you mean the people NOT paying attention. MANY times have I gone to a stand, and people have simply lost the concept of how these things work. You can see 20 drunken idiots in a line while there are open cashiers trying to wave them up to assist them. Many, many, many times I walk right past those not paying attention, gladly place my order, and continue about my way. I have a feeling this is true at almost any ballpark though, am I wrong?
The continuous strength in SF housing costs might have as much or more to do with the hatcount. There are almost zero SF natives left in SF, but a ton of them in the East Bay
OK, I will try to answer this in order because there's a lot here.
You think I wanted the Giants to move to Florida or even San Jose? Come on man, you've met me. I'm like an unofficial ambassador for San Francisco out here in England, telling everybody how great it is and of course you should visit and if you want to live in SF then do it. I wouldn't want the Giants to move out of San Francisco if it meant the Giants won the next billion World Series. I thought it was despicable at the time (since I was a kid and Mean Mr. Lurie wanted to take away my team) and growing up hasn't changed that.
BOTH teams whined over taxpayer funded ballparks, and I would not be happy if either team left San Francisco/Oakland. Go on, ask me what I think about the 49ers moving.
The Giants got gifted prime real estate, rented to them at market rate (which they then complained was too expensive and I was happy to see them get shot down by the City over it) and got the light rail extended to the ballpark but they substantially paid for the stadium themselves. I would be more than happy to see the A's get the same offers from the city of Oakland.
As far as the A's, if they are only receiving a discount on land (and infrastructure improvements) then I'll be happy to retract my claim that they are receiving inappropriate taxpayer assistance, since they would still be doing better than every other baseball team besides the Giants. However, I am under the impression the city of San Jose is guaranteeing bonds for them like NY did for the Mets/Yankees, and it's not been Wolff's MO in the past to offer to build a new stadium without something going back the other way.
I would be delighted if the A's did what the Giants did, which was move to a more desirable part of their home city and pay the lion's share of costs for a new stadium that revitalizes a part of town that was previously undervalued.
People overestimate (in my opinion) how long it takes fanbases to switch. What they're really saying (again, in my opinion) is I would never switch, and therefore other people won't either. 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. Not a single die hard could switch and you know how long it would take for the invading team (in this case, the A's) to build up a sizable stable local fanbase? 6 years. 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.
-OK, you're an "anybody." Point conceded. You just have a minority opinion. A small minority.
-Taking a flyer on 1 guy (Cespedes) is one guy. Have you notcied that nearly every other big dollar player is gone? That total payroll is at or near the bottom?
-Parking prices are up more than 50% in just a few years, while the formerly free spots across 880 are chained off.
-Concessions. I guess I'm just not as special as you. I usually sit some distance from home plate where stands are either non-existent and understaffed. I *have* had those waits more than a few times, and so have many of my less-special-than-you circle. As for attendance increasing concession stands, that is BS. Wolff has consistently stated a desire to reduce fixed costs regardless of attendance, and to discourage walk-up sales for same reason. Whatever sense that may make on a spreadsheet, it makes none in marketing.
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.
yeah but this isn't that situation. The Giants are going to be in the same place they have been for the past decade.
Except if little Tommy's dad is a Giants fan, they'll be watching Giants games on TV and little Tommy will want to go to a Giants game. Which Tommy's dad will be all too happy to do since he's a Giants fan.
The A's aren't moving to virgin territory. Which is why the Giants don't want them to move there, and why I'm skeptical it will work for them in the long run. Suppose Selig finally gives the go-ahead - the Giants are not going to stop marketing in San Jose and trying as hard as they possibly can to keep the sizable majority of South Bay fans who already root for them on their side.
Not trying to be A-Hole, my apologies. That's why I lead with the non-serious anybody remark and closed with a general question about my experiences with concessions as a whole.
Again, didn't mean to come across like a dick. (Me no type good)
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.)
I think your points on fan base change have validity, as much as any point can in this unmeasurable subject. I just think EB fans are more likely to switch allegiance to the Giants because so many of them are connected to SF, in a way that almost no SB fans are. Plus the EB is de classe, and it's hard to see many SB folks latch onto that over SF.
Again, like all this, it's just my .02%
Yeah, but nowhere in the Bay Area is an equivalent to downtown San Francisco. In which case I would take the bird in hand, because of my rooting interests (duh) and because I want to see a strong A's franchise play a role in revitalizing a city I have a lot of affection for that gets mercilessly spat upon by the rest of the Bay Area.
Have season tix actually gone up since IT'S A TARP? Wolff trumpeted that it grew revenue in '06, but of course the A's also made the playoffs that year and he never said by how much.
It's just depressing to go to games now with the tarp. Sure, a lot of people gave the A's crap for averaging 2.2 million during the Moneyball years and they got a lot of those people in on $2 Wednesdays, but those 40,000 Wednesday crowds feel amazing compared to the post-IT'S A TARP crowds.
Didn't have them back then, but mine have been dirt cheap since I have been getting them.
A good argument, IMHO, someone could make about Wolff ruining the fan experience would be to point to the perpetually disappointing "FanFest". THAT would be a valid point to me!
You're right, it's not unique to Wolff, but it's counter-productive with the A's fan base. Like it or not, they used to have a significant walkup business. One knew he could usually just show up and buy a decent seat for most games. In the '00s the walkup crowd could be significant, IIRC it was often 25-35%.
As much as a business WANTS to have the season ticket model, bluntly telling walkup fans they aren't wanted is bad business when they account for so much of your business, and telling them to change is arrogant & stupid: you need the customers a helluva lot more than they need you. If they want to walk up, open more ticket windows and hire a few more food workers at $7-8/hour. Welcome customers, don't wave them off.
I think his early involvement with the team was to set a budget and that was pretty much that. It does seem he's become more involved over the years and does genuinely seem to be a fan now, which is what happens when you're in close proximity with a team for a long time. He's still a businessman first and foremost.
# 76 - I think I could certainly follow this line of thinking, it is the "Wolff is sabotaging the team! It's Major League!" conspiracy stuff that is obscenely misguided. He's a businessman, I get that. He's not the Anti-Christ out to destroy the A's.
In the pre-tarp years, the upper deck seats were $8 and the parking was $10-12. That made an A's game a viable entertainment option vis-a-vis going to the movies and other such spectator activity. A lot of the walkup crowd sat up there (and near home plate they are decent seats). It's fair to say a good portion of those fans (again, all of this is unmeasurable) wouldn't have come otherwise. It's also fair to say that some of those fans who walked up & sat there would enjoy themselves enough to pony up $26 for a plaza seat at a game in the future, esp to see a winning team.
Wolff told those customers to #### off.
Imagine if Toyota quit selling the Yaris or the Tercel because those buyers didn't matter. They'd be killing a whole generation of future Camry & Lexus buyers.
Fans will switch. They always do. Over time things simply change. Proximity, new generations, ease of access, swings in team fortune, the lure of the shiny and new, the gestalt of the marketing effect over time, etc. Plus most people simply aren't team diehards. How many newly minted transplanted Giants fans are there in SF from other parts of the country or other parts of the Bay because of the new stadium, the team's success, and the team now being cool? Answer: TONS. I lived in San Francisco and the Bay as the new stadium was opening and watched the team transform from a local favorite to a local obsession. Casual baseball fans or non-fans move to SF from Portland or New York or whatever, go to a Giants game with friends because that's the cool thing to do, soak up the atmosphere, buy a cap, and from then on it's on rails. People forget that the Giants were liked but weren't really THAT popular before the stadium opened up. They were sort of a quaint entertainment, mostly because the stadium was impossible to get to - a certain brand of San Franciscan or South Bay resident went to games but teenagers and 20-somethings didn't. Now you walk into AT&T and other than wealthy 50 year olds that's all you see.
If the A's win:
- If the Yankees and Orioles win: Yankees have HFA, Rangers play in Baltimore on Friday, A's play in Detroit on Saturday, winner of Wild Card Game hosts Yankees on Sunday
- If the Yankees win and the Orioles lose: Yankees have HFA, Orioles play in Texas on Friday, A's play in Detroit on Saturday, winner of Wild Card Game hosts Yankees on Sunday
- If the Yankees lose and the Orioles win: A's have HFA, Yankees and Orioles play AL East Championship in Baltimore on Thursday, loser hosts Rangers on Friday, winner plays in Detroit on Saturday, winner of Wild Card Game hosts A's on Sunday
- If the Yankees and Orioles lose: A's have HFA, Orioles play in Texas on Friday, Yankees play in Detroit on Saturday, winner of Wild Card Game hosts A's on Sunday
If the Rangers win:
- If the Yankees and Orioles win: Yankees have HFA, A's play in Baltimore on Friday, Rangers play in Detroit on Saturday, winner of Wild Card Game hosts Yankees on Sunday
- If the Yankees win and the Orioles lose: Yankees have HFA, Orioles play in Oakland on Friday, Rangers play in Detroit on Saturday, winner of Wild Card Game hosts Yankees on Sunday
- If the Yankees lose and the Orioles win: Rangers have HFA, Yankees and Orioles play AL East Championship in Baltimore on Thursday, loser hosts A's on Friday, winner plays in Detroit on Saturday, winner of Wild Card Game hosts Rangers on Sunday
- If the Yankees and Orioles lose: Rangers have HFA, Orioles play in Oakland on Friday, Yankees play in Detroit on Saturday, winner of Wild Card Game hosts Rangers on Sunday
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main