Rickey Henderson, Dave Stewart and the now-Bash-terisked "Bash Brothers" team won one World Series, three pennants and four division titles from 1988 to 1992.

Sue me, I kind of like the phrase "now-Bash-terisked".

Beane offered more years and more money to free agents Adrian Beltre and Marco Scutaro than did the Red Sox, and both ended up in Boston. Unless a compromise can be struck with the Giants on territorial rights in San Jose, to save the franchise owned by his college roommate Lew Wolfe, the future may once again raise the specter of contraction.

Wait, Beane was Wolfe's college roommate? or marco scutaro was?

Billy went to UC San Diego. Lew Wolff went to Washington University and the University of Wisconsin. It doesn't look like Scutaro even went to college.

Gammons is confused.

First of all, it is "Wolff", not "Wolfe". And Lew went to the University of Wisconsin with Bud Selig; Beane attended UC San Diego.

There is a possibility that there was a reference to Selig in the original copy that got dropped in the editing process.

the future may once again raise the specter of contraction.

When the A's where threatened with contraction the last time around, didn't they go out and win the division?

The A's biggest obstacle to success is their owner, who refuses to spend on payroll and insults the fan base at every opportunity.

Since Beane hadn't been born when Selig and Wolff were in college, its safe to assume he meant Selig and Wolff where the roommates.

Regarding attendence, I refused to renew my season ticket package the past two seasons, to protest against Wolff moving the team to Fremont. Even sent a letter to Wolff and Beane, telling them why. But this season, I decided to jump back into it. They're apparently considering Oakland again for a new stadium, and this team has some promise. I'm really excited for the season.

As a Marlins fan I'm sympathetic to [6].

That quote might be misleading, [2]. More years + more money might mean a lower AAV, in which case you couldn't fault Scutaro and Beltre to going to the Red Sox. Or it might have been more AAV, but being on a big stage was more important to those two. I mean, who the heck wants to go to Oakland, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, or San Diego right now unless they're clearly, CLEARLY the top bidder?

I thought Cust got cut. Did I miss a news item?

re Cust: He wasn't cut, his contract had expired. I think he then filed for free agency. Then the A's signed him again.

Think about the three teams that play at the Oakland Coliseum - the Warriors, Raiders, and A's. Oakland is cursed with inept owners and management. Billy Beane being the saving exception - if it weren't for him all three teams would be spectacularly awful. Oakland and the East Bay are a great sports town. Give us something to work with.

Right. He was non-tendered. Then he was tendered.

the future may once again raise the specter of contraction.

It's even funnier the second time around.

There is a possibility that there was a reference to Selig in the original copy that got dropped in the editing process.

It looks to me like the possibility that there was an editing process is something like zero.

Even when the Athletics were in the midst of winning three consecutive World Series titles from 1972-74, owner Charles O. Finley had members of the front office distributing box lunches in the press box, and the Coliseum was hardly ever filled.

In 1972, the A's exceeded 40,000 fans in the regular season only 1 time in 81 home games. The Coliseum's listed capacity then was 50,000. On Opening Day, coming off of a division title with a team which featured Reggie Jackson and Vida Blue (the AL MVP and CY winner), the A's drew just 9,912 fans*. The next game, they attracted 9,051; and they followed that up with 4,494 for their 3rd home game of the season.

In 1973, the defending World Champions had no home sell-outs. They exceeded 40,000 fans at home just 3 times. On Opening Day they did much better (38,207), but game 2 (7,246)was even worse than the year before.

In 1974, the two-time defending World Champions again had no home sell-outs and again beat 40,000 just 3 times. Their home opener against Texas attracted only 22,743 fans to see Vida Blue face off against Jim Bibby. Of the 12 teams then in the American League, Oakland was 11th in attendance. For the entire season, only 845,693 fans attended games at the Coliseum to see the A's.

In 1975, the three-time defending World Champions had no home sell-outs and had more than 40,000 fans only 2 times. They opened at home against the White Sox and drew crowds of 17,477, 4,543 and 4,730.

*I was one of them. As a reward for winning the Cy Young and the MVP, Charlie Finley presented Vida Blue with a new Chevy Corvette before the game.

@Rich: I just had a random thought. The Swingin' A's might have drawn more fans if Charlie O. had more front office staff who could better promote the team. I know he had a flair for the promotional dramatic (Vida Blue's Corvette being one of many examples), but I'm not sure that was a substitute for better marketing toward the East and South Bay.

Did it have pimperiffic rims?

In 1975, the three-time defending World Champions had no home sell-outs and had more than 40,000 fans only 2 times. They opened at home against the White Sox and drew crowds of 17,477, 4,543 and 4,730.

Wow. How did they stay in Oakland?

How did they stay in Oakland?

The reserve clause.

Wow. How did they stay in Oakland?

(Almost) nobody drew fans in those days. In 1972, with 12,000 per game, the A's were 5th in the league; in 1975, at just over 13,000, they were 6th. By 1982, 21,000 was good for 6th of 14; by 1988, 28,000 was only good for 7th.

In 1975, Boston led the AL with just over 1.7 million; by 2009, that would have been good for (roughly) a 3-way tie for 11th in the AL with Cleveland and KC (Oakland was the worst).

Funny, back when players only played for the love of the game, tix were cheap and stadiums were "family friendly", nobody went to the games. :-)

In 1972, the A's exceeded 40,000 fans in the regular season only 1 time 81 home games

And that's the way it was.

With a work stoppage and double-headers, Oakland actually had 71 home dates.

Baltimore got there 1x
California 1x (only time above 27,000 was on July 4th)
Yanks 2x (once for a double-header)
Chicago 2x
Boston 0 (34,642) -- didn't have capacity
Twins 0 (36,090)
Kansas City 0 (28,563).
debut Rangers 0 (24,222).
Indians 0 (37,637 --never half-way filled Municipal)
Brewers 0 (26,735).

Detroit had 11 of the leagues 18 crowds of 40,000+.

In 1973, the defending World Champions . . . exceeded 40,000 fans at home just 3 times. On Opening Day they did much better (38,207), but game 2 (7,246)was even worse than the year before.

Baltimore - 1x over 40,000 -- 26,540 Opening Day -- 6740 2nd game
Boston - 0x -- 32,882 -- 19,236
California - 1x -- 27,240 -- 17,151
Chicago - 3x -- 22,114 -- 22,091
Cleveland - 1x -- 74,420 --10,798
Detroit - 11x -- 46,389 -- 6303
Kansas City - 0x -- 39,464 -- 8581
Milwaukee - 1x --26,543 -- 6740 (drew 41k for a Sunday DH)
Minnesota - 1x -- 13,040 -- 10,711 (drew 46k on 7/4)
New York - 5x -- 17,027 -- 5059 (one Sunday DH, one DH on 7/4)
Texas - 0x -- 22,114 -- 11,047 (exceeded 30,000 only for Clyde's first two starts)

So Oakland was one of 4 teams to have multiple games above 40,000, had the 4th largest Opening Day crowd and was in the half of the league who dropped below 10,000 for game 2. Fairly typical.

In 1974, the two-time defending World Champions again had no home sell-outs and again beat 40,000 just 3 times. Their home opener against Texas attracted only 22,743 fans to see Vida Blue face off against Jim Bibby.

Baltimore - 0x -- 23,918 (Palmer v. Lolich)
Boston - 0x -- 23,441 (Tiant v. Palmer)
California - 1x (July 4th) -- 25,241 (Ryan v. Bibby)
Chicago - 3x -- 30,041 -- (Wood v. Ryan)
Cleveland - 5x -- 22,036 -- (JPerry v. Clyde Wright)
Detroit - 2x -- 44,047 -- (Lolich v. Steve Kline)
Kansas City - 0x -- 31,781 -- (Splitorff v. Blyleven)
Milwaukee - 1x -- 32,761 -- (Colburn v. Tiant)
Minnestota - 0x -- 10,409 -- (Blyleven v. Wood) -- never above 30,000
New York - 4x -- 20,744 -- (Stottlemyer v. JPerry) -- 2 of 4x double-headers
Texas - 0x -- 21,907 -- (Bibby v. Hunter)

So, half the league drew 20-25,000 on Opening Day with similar-to-better pitching match-ups elsewhere. Oakland was one of 4 teams to draw 40k 3x.

The times were just different. Sellouts were exceedingly rare. Big crowds came out for Sunday games and for double-headers. Midweek games against lower-division teams drew under 10,000 fairly consistently.

I really don't remember when this changed. Wonder if it actually follows metropolitan areas' population growths.

The sad days before Florida had a baseballing nine.

Baltimore - 0x -- 23,918 (Palmer v. Lolich)
Boston - 0x -- 23,441 (Tiant v. Palmer)

Because I'm kind of slow, it took me a long time to figure out how Jim Palmer could apparently be in two places at once.

Because I'm kind of slow, it took me a long time to figure out how Jim Palmer could apparently be in two places at once.

Speaking of Jim Palmer as a gate draw and the 1970s as having crappy attendance in general, the first Major-League game I ever attended was on a Saturday afternoon between two Hall-of-Fame starting pitchers, one of whom had won the two previous Cy Young awards, the other of whom would win his second Cy the next season, with the home team entering the day 0.5 games out of first place. According to Retrosheet, the attendance that day was 10,738.

As a reward for winning the Cy Young and the MVP, Charlie Finley presented Vida Blue with a new Chevy Corvette before the game.

I read this first as a Chevy Chevette and wasn't the least surprised that Finley would find it an appropriate reward.

Funny, back when players only played for the love of the game, tix were cheap and stadiums were "family friendly", nobody went to the games. :-)

The U.S population in 1970 was two-thirds what it is today. Add to that corporate tax breaks for booxes and tickets and a leisure class that is comparatively much wealthier than it was in 1970 and I don't think we've seen anything like an actual explosion in attendance over the last forty years.

I grew up in the east bay in the early 70's and saw quite a few A's games. But I was always a Giants fan, and that is one part of the problem there. The A's were still a new team in the Bay Area, competing with a team built around three first ballot HOF type players. At that time we didn't realize how strong of an organization had moved to Oakland, because KC had been a perennial joke with no established stars. But there's the rub, the 67 A's may have been a glorified AAA team, every player on that team that mattered was 25 or less, it was a younger team than any modern AAA team. So a AAA team, but one HELL of a AAA team, Campaneris was the 25yo veteran, Rick Monday was the best hitter at 21, but Jackson, Bando, Rudi and Duncan put in appearances at 21, 23, 20 and 21yo respectively. The ace of the staff was a 21yo kid with a stupid nickname that lost 17 games, and "Catfish" had been the only all star for the last two years in KC. The other starters were all of the 21-25 age range showing a fair amount of unheralded promise. and there were a couple of decent relievers there too.

In that day and age, and with the lack of baseball obsession and understanding, it was hard to promote a bunch of kids with poor stats in a market with Mays Marichal, McCovey, and Perry. Imagine if the 2007 Rays moved to St. Louis.

I remember going to a few games in 68, we literally knew none of the names, and did not appreciate how nice of a park the new Coliseum was. Like the team its excellence as probably the second best ballpark of the concrete generation was lost amid the poorly handled hokey pr gimmicks of the Finley A's.

The U.S population in 1970 was two-thirds what it is today. Add to that corporate tax breaks for booxes and tickets and a leisure class that is comparatively much wealthier than it was in 1970 and I don't think we've seen anything like an actual explosion in attendance over the last forty years.

gosh. you think? So maybe it shouldn't be surprising that Oakland could stay in business 40 years ago while drawing 10-12,000 per game? Do you think maybe that was the point of the posts?

But to think it's all just population growth and income inequality (which likely doesn't help attendance although it might well help revenues) seems overly simplified to me. As I noted, by 1988 (13 years later), Oakland's attendance was more than double but was still middle of the pack. As I noted, Boston led the league (by nearly 500,000) in 1975 with 1.7 million; by 1988, 9 of 14 teams topped that mark (with the Twins! leading the league with over 3 M).

AL total attendance, selected years:

1972: 11.4 (12 teams)
1977: 19.6
1982: 23.1
1987: 27.3
1992: 31.9

Just looking from 77 to 92, that's 63% attendance growth in 15 years. We would have seen roughly 15% population growth in those 15 years. The late 70s and early 80s were a bad time for the economy as were the late 80s-early 90s although a time of growing income inequality I do believe. Demographic factors had an impact obviously but the attendance growth is far too substantial to be explained that way.

By the way, 2008 attendance (34.5) was only about 10% higher than 1992 attendance and that would easily be explained by demographic factors (and increases in real revenue due to rising income inequality, etc.)

Speaking of Jim Palmer as a gate draw and the 1970s as having crappy attendance in general, the first Major-League game I ever attended was on a Saturday afternoon between two Hall-of-Fame starting pitchers,

I, too, attended my first MLB game in Baltimore that year.

What I remember from the late-70s and early-80s is that, if you went to see an expansion team mid-week, you could cover more ground going after pop ups in the stands than Pat Kelly could in the outfield. I exaggerate only slightly . . . but there wasn't much competition for foul balls.

Kinda of the subject but I came a cross a peter gammons twitter page about a month ago and still have no idea whether it's real or a well-constructed satire?
anyone know? (I almost don't want to know).

it's absolutely perfect, blatant homerism, bizarre political rants thrown in without provication or context, misspellings, messages cut short due to the character limit, plugs for really lame bands, cheap shots at showy players, endless felating of "good guys", misplaced efensive anger, useless insider info that's probably BS thrown around with the assumption we alrady know more than we do etc etc

http://twitter.com/Pgammo

Whoever is responsible for that Gammo twitter is ####### brilliant.

The more I look at it the more I think maybe it is real.

I Bostonian friend of mine claims it's real, but I remain unsure. Hilarious, either way.

The A's dropped $800K on 16 year old Dominican pitcher Michael Feliz.

With an imposing yet projectable 6´3”, 180 lb frame, Feliz (16) showed his aptitude for development over the last two months in the DPL. His 91-93 mph fastball exhibits strong downhill plane and movement while his curveball shows nice potential to become an above average secondary pitch. Needless to say, DPL hitters are happy to see him leave the league and get his pro career started. Feliz becomes the first Tainos player to get his professional career started.

I'm more skeptical of the MPH than the age.

manager Bob Geren can play around with Crisp, Ryan Sweeney and last year’s revelation, Rajai Davis. Kurt Suzuki can hit second or third, Kevin Kouzmanoff, DH Eric Chavez, Jack Cust and Daric Barton can all bat somewhere in the middle.

I'm about as hopeless an A's fan as there is, but I think the author seriously overestimates the offensive firepower available there.

"We would have seen roughly 15% population growth in those 15 years. ... Demographic factors had an impact obviously but the attendance growth is far too substantial to be explained that way."

I think demographic factors played a role in the growth of attendance from the late 1970s on. That is, you had a rising percentage of the population (and in absolute numbers an explosion of population) of people 18-45. That is, the Baby Boomers, who went to 1-2 games a year (or less) as kids, reached the age when they could afford to go to 3-4 games a year or more.

A much bigger factor, though, was rising prosperity. Average real income was substantially higher by the mid-1980s. Thus more people had more dollars available for entertainment. Far fewer people were just getting by. Far more people were living well. The percentage growth in per capita GDP lifted them from the strata where they could pay their rent (or mortgage) and buy all their essentials to live to a strata where they had a few extra hundred bucks to blow.

"The late 70s and early 80s were a bad time for the economy as were the late 80s-early 90s although a time of growing income inequality I do believe."

Not true. The times when income inequality has expanded the most have been the times when our economy has grown the fastest. From 1980-83 (when the economy stunk), income inequality shrunk. From 1984-1989, when the economy was booming, income inequality rose.

I don't think income inequality has itself an effect on ballpark attendance. However, I think it does have an effect on ballpark demographics, especially when it is combined with corporations buying up tickets for their customers and employees. The larger higher-end crowd has bid up ticket prices at sporting events. (This is especially true in the nicer, newer ballparks and Fenway and Wrigley, as well.) The higher ticket prices have had the effect of pricing out the large segment of people who are in the "just getting by" category of fans. But for rising income inequality (particularly beginning in the mid-1990s), we would not have so many well-off people capable of pricing out middle-income fans from tickets.

(Note: In most ballparks, of course, middle-income fans are not priced out from all seats, just the premium seats.)