Unfortunately, the A's are the lone holdout on the new stadium front. I'm pretty sure Bud won't be allowed back into hell until he gets someone to buy them a stadium. From my perspective, Oakland is preferable but I can live with San Jose.

Strangely whiny blog post from deMause. OK, Abraham's grasp on the business of baseball is woefully ignorant, but the dude was an Oakland economic city adviser. It doesn't take Sam Spade to figure out that in all likelihood someone in the Oakland city government tipped him off to this finding.

Ship 'em back to Philly.

unless MLB elects to delay the release of the report after this blog post

This guy doesn't lack confidence or belief in his own importance.

If the stadium committee mentions that San Jose, which is just 30 miles from Oakland and in a smaller population center of the Bay Area, but still in The San Francisco Bay Area, and competing with the SF Giants Fan base for ticket revenue, is better for selling tickets, then this blogger will assert that Major League Baseball itself does not understand marketing a stadium product in the 21st Century.

I'm not sure why a stadium in San Jose would be worse for ticket sales than a stadium in Oakland, unless you really drink the Giants kool-aid and believe that everyone in the South Bay is a die-hard Giants fan and would rather die than watch baseball anywhere other than China Basin.

I don't even know the way there

unless MLB elects to delay the release of the report after this blog post

This guy doesn't lack confidence or belief in his own importance.

Context - remember, "(t)he news came too late in the night Monday to check with appropriate key players for their reaction"; I took it to mean "after" as in timing, not in "after reading".

I'm not sure why a stadium in San Jose would be worse for ticket sales than a stadium in Oakland

Again, context - "But if Major League Baseball even uses the term “marketing” or “ticket sales” as a San Jose advantage in the report then the stadium committee itself doesn’t know what it’s talking about." His point isn' that San Jose is worse, but that it would be a stretch to think it'd be significantly better.

I'm not sure why a stadium in San Jose would be worse for ticket sales than a stadium in Oakland, unless you really drink the Giants kool-aid and believe that everyone in the South Bay is a die-hard Giants fan and would rather die than watch baseball anywhere other than China Basin.

It wouldn't be worse, but I think there's a lot of reasonable doubt that it would be miles better, enough to propel the A's out of the poor house. The Giants are a pretty strong brand in the Bay Area, and the A's will have to change a lot of ways they have been run historically (cheap, not PR conscious) to compete with that. They are also moving from a population center of the Bay Area to an end; Sonoma/Contra Costa/Solano/Sacramento County A's fans are now going to have a significantly longer drive to A's games, and I fully expect the Giants to pounce on this. Those people should be getting converted to the Giants and that's a huge portion of the A's current fanbase. Santa Clara County people might go to a's games, but they might not stop being Giants fans first.

The A's are going to San Jose eventually. I have little doubt this will happen. The Giants will get a fat check out of it and possibly majority ownership in a new cable network that will show both team's games. What I specifically doubt is that it is going to be a boon for the A's, or a boon greater than if they built their own ballpark in Oakland and stopped crying poor every ten seconds.

San Jose, which is just 30 miles from Oakland and in a smaller population center of the Bay Area

Is this true? I'm not being snarky here. San Jose is the largest city in the Bay Area by a fair margin, and more than twice as populous as Oakland, but are the immediate surrounding areas less densely populated?

Edit: Thank you, Flynn, for partially answering my question while I was writing it.

The Giants are a pretty strong brand in the Bay Area, and the A's will have to change a lot of ways they have been run historically (cheap, not PR conscious) to compete with that.

Almost all of the A's current problems can be traced back to abysmal ownership. The current ownership group bought the team specifically in order to leverage a sweetheart real estate deal, and now that the collapsed real estate bubble put the kibosh on that, they don't know what to do with the team, which they clearly view as a white elephant.

Probably the best thing for the A's, long-term, is to get them a new stadium (somewhere, anywhere) to boost the value of the franchise so that Wolff & co. can sell to a group that's interested in actually running a baseball team.

Basically if you look the population of the Bay Area, it's a little bit like a triangle.

Santa Rosa is one point, San Jose is the other, and the third is somewhere east. Vacaville, Tracy, or Stockton if you want to get a little cute about it. Once you get outside of these cities you won't be seeing any big towns for a while. San Jose is a point, while Oakland and San Francisco are smack in the middle of that triangle.

SF and Oakland are about an hour from everywhere in what could reasonably be called the Bay Area. San Jose is not. It's not ridiculously longer, but it's a half-hour to 40 minutes longer than Oakland is from most places in the Bay Area. The A's get a decent crowd from Sacramento even on weeknights - no way those people are going to weeknight games in San Jose.

It might be a successful tradeoff, but there's a risk here.

Could the A's get more from the South Bay than they lose from the East and far-East Bay? Likewise, could the Giants get more from the East Bay than the A's would take away from the South Bay? I think it's unlikely that the Giants would draw much from Sacremento, Tracy, etc. That bridge / tunnel is a fairly daunting obstacle -- especially on weeknights, even if it is a reverse commute.

Almost all of the A's current problems can be traced back to abysmal ownership. The current ownership group bought the team specifically in order to leverage a sweetheart real estate deal, and now that the collapsed real estate bubble put the kibosh on that, they don't know what to do with the team, which they clearly view as a white elephant.

Probably the best thing for the A's, long-term, is to get them a new stadium (somewhere, anywhere) to boost the value of the franchise so that Wolff & co. can sell to a group that's interested in actually running a baseball team.

As a white elephant? I see what you've done here..

This is all true, but it has been true for a good, long time. The A's have been run by cheapskates for years while the Giants have been run by a very PR-friendly group for just as long. The Giants have probably always been more popular, but they've capitalized on their advantages and built themselves a gleaming new park, play up their history and use their money to buy themselves an ownership share in CSN Bay Area to give them more TV time than the A's. Their cuddly relationship with the City's power brokers means they hardly get criticism in the local media.

The A's have the deck stacked against them, but they should have been able to get a stranglehold on Alameda/Contra Costa/Solano/Sacramento counties, which you can support a team off of. They don't do this very well, though. Their radio access sucks, their TV access sucks, they constantly ##### and moan about the Coliseum, they close off the upper deck, etc.

The A's have the deck stacked against them, but they should have been able to get a stranglehold on Alameda/Contra Costa/Solano/Sacramento counties, which you can support a team off of. They don't do this very well, though. Their radio access sucks, their TV access sucks, they constantly ##### and moan about the Coliseum, they close off the upper deck, etc.

That's because A's ownership doesn't care about running a successful baseball team. The original plan was to use the team to get a bunch of land, ostensibly for a new stadium but really for larger-scale development, and then sell the land and sell the team. Wolff saw the whole thing as guaranteed profit.

Unfortunately for him and for A's fans, that didn't work out, so now they're just trying to run the team as cheaply as possible.

MOVE THEM BACK TO KANSAS CITY!!!

That's because A's ownership doesn't care about running a successful baseball team. The original plan was to use the team to get a bunch of land, ostensibly for a new stadium but really for larger-scale development, and then sell the land and sell the team. Wolff saw the whole thing as guaranteed profit.

Unfortunately for him and for A's fans, that didn't work out, so now they're just trying to run the team as cheaply as possible.

Oh, I know. But we've had this for 15+ years now. Much more of that and you won't have a fanbase left. I know you'll say they don't care, and you'll be right. But much more of this and it really will be better for the A's if they bail town, because at least then they can have a fresh start. It's not like Chicago where the Blackhawks can stink for 40 years but the fans will come back when the owner dies because there's no alternative. People will just be Giants fans and not care what the A's do.

Oh, I know. But we've had this for 15+ years now. Much more of that and you won't have a fanbase left. I know you'll say they don't care, and you'll be right. But much more of this and it really will be better for the A's if they bail town, because at least then they can have a fresh start.

I'm starting to think that the best place for the A's might be Sacramento.

It's a shame - MLB really should have rejected this group's bid to buy the team - it was obvious from the start what they were trying to do. But Wolff wanted to get a new stadium built, and as long as that's the case, Selig thinks you're aces.

The Giants have always been viewed as the "prestige" team in the Bay Area, but it's not really clear that this had to be the case. It's only since Magowan took over that they've been well-marketed. In the 70s and 80s they were basically viewed as a complete loser franchise, whereas the A's were winners for much of that time. Even in the late 80s the Humm Baby Giants were overshadowed by the McGwire/Canseco A's (who absolutely destroyed them in the World Series). And back then the Oakland Coliseum was even viewed as a better place to see a game since the Giants played at Candlestick. If the A's had had good ownership committed to long term franchise development either in the 70s or the late 80s/early 90s, they could have turned things over and become the prestige franchise themselves. However, they didn't and now that the Giants have their shiny new stadium and a good marketing plan, I think the A's are relegated to playing second fiddle for the foreseeable future.

It's a shame - MLB really should have rejected this group's bid to buy the team - it was obvious from the start what they were trying to do. But Wolff wanted to get a new stadium built, and as long as that's the case, Selig thinks you're aces.

Well, he's also Selig's college roommate, so talk about cronyism.

I agree Sacramento is probably the best future they've got in Northern California. Raley Field is built to be converted into an MLB-sized stadium and it's already A's country. They can keep at least a foothold in the Bay Area and their current fanbase there, while taking advantage of a quickly growing population base. They'll get the lebensraum they won't get in the Bay Area.

The Giants have always been viewed as the "prestige" team in the Bay Area, but it's not really clear that this had to be the case. It's only since Magowan took over that they've been well-marketed. In the 70s and 80s they were basically viewed as a complete loser franchise, whereas the A's were winners for much of that time. Even in the late 80s the Humm Baby Giants were overshadowed by the McGwire/Canseco A's (who absolutely destroyed them in the World Series). And back then the Oakland Coliseum was even viewed as a better place to see a game since the Giants played at Candlestick. If the A's had had good ownership committed to long term franchise development either in the 70s or the late 80s/early 90s, they could have turned things over and become the prestige franchise themselves. However, they didn't and now that the Giants have their shiny new stadium and a good marketing plan, I think the A's are relegated to playing second fiddle for the foreseeable future.

They did have good ownership in the late 80s - he just died and his kids sold the team to a couple of real estate developers.

The A's in the late 80s were certainly capable of achieving parity with the Giants. I don't think the Giants would have ever become second fiddle; having a ten year headstart and being located in San Francisco would have helped them. But true parity was certainly achievable, and arguably was achieved. Then Wally Haas died and it all went to ####.

I really think it's the stadium. PacBell (or whatever) is an astonishingly beautiful park and a triumphant achievement in the world of sports venues. The Coliseum, while not as bad as many people say, is still kind of a dump. Honestly I don't think there's much to the "Giants have better marketing" except insofar as the park and the team's own self-replicating or self-fulfilling image can be counted as 'marketing'. Oh, and the radio, yes, that's a huge problem. I've given up trying to figure out what new station is playing A's games each year. The A's have much better commercials and much more visibility everywhere in the Bay outside of the City proper, I think. They were consistently competitive as recently as the Giants were. In all honesty I think the association with the Raiders, as pathetic a franchise as you'll find in sport, is also dragging the A's down.

I really thought that Jack London thing was going to swing the momentum back in Oakland's direction. I'd really hate to see the A's move down there.

Likewise, could the Giants get more from the East Bay than the A's would take away from the South Bay?

Um, yes.

Basically if you look the population of the Bay Area, it's a little bit like a triangle.

Santa Rosa is one point, San Jose is the other, and the third is somewhere east.

This is kinda true, but it ignores the fact that the concentration of corporations and private wealth is far higher in Silicon Valley and the Peninsula (which is closer to San Jose than to SF or Oakland) than it is in the East or North Bays. I'd say SF, Oak, and SJ are the corners of the triangle, and there's a lot more wealth in the South than on the East.

I'm starting to think that the best place for the A's might be Sacramento.

I don't understand how anyone could think Sacramento is a better long-term home for the A's than San Jose. I don't see it offering any advantages.

That's because A's ownership doesn't care about running a successful baseball team. The original plan was to use the team to get a bunch of land, ostensibly for a new stadium but really for larger-scale development, and then sell the land and sell the team. Wolff saw the whole thing as guaranteed profit.

Unfortunately for him and for A's fans, that didn't work out, so now they're just trying to run the team as cheaply as possible.

They're not running the team any more cheaply than the previous regime did, and it's hard to argue that a new stadium would not be in the A's best interests.

What I specifically doubt is that it is going to be a boon for the A's, or a boon greater than if they built their own ballpark in Oakland and stopped crying poor every ten seconds.

We've been crying poor since 1915. We have a proud history of crying poor, and I'll be damned if we're going to stop now!

They're not running the team any more cheaply than the previous regime did, and it's hard to argue that a new stadium would not be in the A's best interests.

A new stadium where, though? A stadium in Fremont (as Wolff proposed) would have been disastrous for the A's.

I really think it's the stadium. PacBell (or whatever) is an astonishingly beautiful park and a triumphant achievement in the world of sports venues. The Coliseum, while not as bad as many people say, is still kind of a dump. Honestly I don't think there's much to the "Giants have better marketing" except insofar as the park and the team's own self-replicating or self-fulfilling image can be counted as 'marketing'.

I completely agree with this. There's been a lot of revisionist history over the last few years, but the fact is that the A's out-drew the Giants until Pac Bell opened.

Is it agreed that, should they change the name from "Athletics" to something else we will descend like locusts to avenge Connie Mack?

I completely agree with this. There's been a lot of revisionist history over the last few years, but the fact is that the A's out-drew the Giants until Pac Bell opened.

I think it's more accurate to say they outdrew the Giants when the Giants were in Candlestick Park, threatening to leave and the Coliseum wasn't Al Davis-ized.

The Giants have outdrawn the A's every year since 1993 and 1995 was the only year it was particularly close.

Is it agreed that, should they change the name from "Athletics" to something else we will descend like locusts to avenge Connie Mack?/quote]

Oh, necessarily.

The Giants have outdrawn the A's every year since 1993 and 1995 was the only year it was particularly close.

Yes, the Giants outdrew the A's when the Giants were good (and had signed Bonds) and the A's sucked. This has little to do with the folk story history of the Giants always having had a huge marketing and popularity advantage over the A's in the Bay Area.

The reality is that the A's outdrew the Giants overall until Pac Bell opened. From 1967-1999, the Giants finished in the top half of the league in attendance just 3 times. Since Pac Bell was opened, they've been amongst the best in the league in attendance. The A's attendance has fluctuated greatly with the quality of the team, but there was no structural restraint against them getting at least their fair share of Bay Area fans until Pac Bell opened.

Yess!

It's only fair considering San Jose used to be part of the A's territory before Walter Haas Jr. gave it to the Giants.

Edit: Wait, the only source is this idiot sfgate blogger?

Yes, the Giants outdrew the A's when the Giants were good (and had signed Bonds) and the A's sucked. This has little to do with the folk story history of the Giants always having had a huge marketing and popularity advantage over the A's in the Bay Area.

Well neither team was popular at all before the Haas family bought the A's. The A's averaged under a million for their 70s run of glory. They outdrew the Giants except for 1971 but neither team drew #### in the wider scope of baseball. But the 1978 Giants drew 700 thousand more than the A's ever drew in a single season when they won 3 World Series in a row. Both teams tried to move.

Then the Haas family bought the team and they really made an effort to get the team noticed and it was successful. They were just as popular as the Giants in the 80s.

Don't the Sharks draw really well? Nobody really cared about hockey before they came along.

Don't the Sharks draw really well? Nobody really cared about hockey before they came along.

The Sharks do very, very well. However, so do the Warriors. I think San Jose would be a fine market for the A's, but they are already in a fine market, they just need to exploit it. Also, it would be nice if the mayor of Oakland wasn't a complete #### up.

I think San Jose would be a fine market for the A's, but they are already in a fine market, they just need to exploit it.

Absolutely. Every difficulty the A's face has been self-inflicted, and merely moving the franchise to a different locale does nothing to address that.

"A new stadium where, though? A stadium in Fremont (as Wolff proposed) would have been disastrous for the A's."

Any chance the new A's stadium goes where the NUMMI plant is/was? That site is larger than the Cisco site. It's more accessible. And it is significantly closer to the new Warm Springs BART station. (I think it would be about the same distance to walk from the Warm Springs station to NUMMI as it now is to walk from the Coliseum station to the Coliseum.) Oakland area fans may hate the move. But by BART they could be in Fremont pretty fast. Same thing with San Jose area fans and Pleasanton area fans. The worst off would be people, like me, who live near Sacramento.

Lew Wolff's idea has long been to build a stadium surrounded by a residential and commericial real estate project, the profits of which would help cover a lot of the costs of the ballpark. NUMMI is going to have to eventually be converted into some other use. Maybe in 20 years a new auto company would come in. But maybe a better choice would be for that site's owner (GM?) to sell it to a partnership including the A's, and build a ballpark and residential/commercial/industrial project to replace NUMMI?

my memory of A's games when i lived in the bay area was that there was a significant number of people in s.f. who were fans. i would drive down from santa rosa and park at my g.f.'s place then take BART to the game. the trains were pretty full. seems a pity that would no longer be an option if the A's move. or would it?

I agree by and large with most of the sentiments expressed in this thread. Sacramento, in my mind, is a non-starter. The (basketball) Kings and Sharks do so well because they are the only professional franchise in their town -- the Sharks in particular represent one of the few savvy things the NHL has done, getting in early to a growing population/wealth center.

While distance-wise it may seem bad, because of traffic patterns I'm not too convinced that the stadium in San Jose would be less convenient for the people along, well, the 680 corridor, that people have mentioned (questionably IMO) as being a base for A's fans. The new stadium in San Jose would be near HP Pavilion, which 680 goes directly to. Not only is this a fairly direct trip, it avoids the worst parts of the traffic maze -- not that there is zero traffic on 680/280, but it's much more direct and better than having to slog through 238/880, or 24/880 to get to the Coliseum current location. 880 is the worst highway in the Bay Area traffic-wise and anything that avoids 880 is great. For people in, say, Fremont, who are roughly equidistant from the sites, getting to San Jose would be considerably faster than getting to the current location.

The other thing to remember about Silicon Valley is that there are an enormous number of transplants living in the area. These people may be Giants fans by default now, but they are unlikely to be lifelong/hardcore fans -- and having a more convenient team to support would easily win many of them over. Not to mention the large Indian population much of which is cricket-crazy who could probably be converted to baseball fans. If there were a baseball stadium closer than SF, it's not a stretch to think that these people would just go there instead. None of these people go to Oakland now because the traffic is so abysmal and there is no way to get there using public transportation.

So, I think the A's in San Jose would draw well. The downside is that they would basically not retain any of their Oakland fanbase -- this fanbase doesn't root for the A's so much as they root for Oakland. I mean this in the kindest way possible, but for a pretty shitty town, it has a ton of civic pride. I doubt these people will get down to San Jose for games.

And I certainly agree that ownership of the A's, for the last 15 years, has been quite bad for the team.

What you don't mention is public transportation - getting to the Coliseum on BART is incredibly easy, and BART stretches into pretty much everywhere from the Delta on South... except to San Jose. I grew up here, have lived here almost continuously for most of my life, and I have zero idea how I'd get to San Jose from Berkeley without driving, which I don't intend to do.

The downside is that they would basically not retain any of their Oakland fanbase -- this fanbase doesn't root for the A's so much as they root for Oakland. I mean this in the kindest way possible, but for a pretty shitty town, it has a ton of civic pride. I doubt these people will get down to San Jose for games.

I agree with every aspect of this statement 100%.

BART stretches into pretty much everywhere from the Delta on South... except to San Jose.

that was what i was getting at. is there a way to take BART to millbrae and then a train to san jose?
is the number of people who use BART to get to games so negigible that the owners wouldn't care if they lost that?

The BART thing is definitely a good point. You wouldn't be able to get to the San Jose site from Berkeley without driving (and that driving would be wretched, along the same stretch of 880 whose heavy traffic prevents people from driving up from the South Bay en masse now.) However, on the flip side, you can't get from the Peninsula (let alone the Souuth Bay) to Oakland without driving either. The proposed site is right near a Caltrain station for people living on the Peninsula, though that wouldn't help anyone coming from Berkeley. It would definitely overall be a big dip in the people taking public transportation to the game.

I guess the Bay Area's dysfunctional public transportation system is another reason why the move of only 40 miles would nevertheless result in an extremely different fan base.

Phred, you can do that, but almost nobody actually would on a regular basis (or would do the opposite current option of taking Caltrain to Millbrae and then BART to Oakland). These trips would both be extremely lengthy given the relative sloth of both transportation systems along with waiting time and general mental hassle. A lot of people do take BART to games.

is there a way to take BART to millbrae and then a train to san jose?

Not a practical way. You'd be better off catching Caltrain in SF and taking it all the way to San Jose.

is the number of people who use BART to get to games so negigible that the owners wouldn't care if they lost that?

That's a good question, given that there's no BART whatsoever in the South Bay.

The big issue with moving the A's to San Jose remains that whatever gains in attendance/media revenue achieved by the A's would almost certainly come at the Giants' expense. Unless the net impact is to somehow attract new fans to the sport by moving the A's to SJ, then it's extremely difficult to see how this would be of benefit to the MLB enterprise. Just reslicing the pie of fans within the Bay Area is unproductive from that standpoint.

There simply is no need to move the A's franchise at all; having them located in Oakland isn't, and never has been, a problem. The team's eternal lack of a credible radio broadcasting program is a problem, and of course the A's management's perpetual trashmouthing their own stadium is a problem.

But, of course, moving the franchise per se has never been the real interest of Wolff or MLB. Persuading the taxpayers somewhere (anywhere, whether it's San Jose or Oakland or Timbuktu) to build them a shiny new stadium is what this is all about.

The big issue with moving the A's to San Jose remains that whatever gains in attendance/media revenue achieved by the A's would almost certainly come at the Giants' expense. Unless the net impact is to somehow attract new fans to the sport by moving the A's to SJ, then it's extremely difficult to see how this would be of benefit to the MLB enterprise. Just reslicing the pie of fans within the Bay Area is unproductive from that standpoint.

I don't think this is true. While most people in the Valley probably call themselves "Giants fans," we're talking about [a lot of] people who go to 1-2 games a year who would probably go to 10-15 games of the new San Jose A's; there are many companies down here who might well want luxury boxes or whatever (and have them at HP Pavilion for the Sharks) who I imagine don't have them in Pac Bell. On the flip side, there is a good chance that MLB would lose as a whole an enormous fraction of current A's fans (I don't see them switching to the Giants), so I do tend to agree that overall it would be a slight negative to MLB.

so I do tend to agree that overall it would be a slight negative to MLB.

I don't know that it would be a negative to MLB, but I don't see a particular positive upside either. The Bay Area market is what it is; merely moving one or the other of the franchises to a different spot within it does nothing to develop a new market.

thanks, i'm surprised the A's would ever want to move away from public transport options for fans.

but i'm also surprised that anyone thinks SF public transportation is bad. i've been to the city a lot and find the buses and BART to be extremely reliable, esp. compared to other municipalities.

but i'm also surprised that anyone thinks SF public transportation is bad

SF public transportation is fine. South Bay public transportation is spectacularly bad.

but i'm also surprised that anyone thinks SF public transportation is bad. i've been to the city a lot and find the buses and BART to be extremely reliable, esp. compared to other municipalities.

The city sport in San Francisco is to complain about MUNI. It's not great, but I think it suffers a little bit in that BART is absolutely fantastic and people compare it to BART. It's actually more expensive than an intra-SF BART ticket, which it gets (deservedly, IMO) a lot of crap for.

I think people in SF also compare their public transit to big Eastern cities, which SF probably doesn't fare so well with.

South Bay public transportation is spectacularly bad.

Caltrain is great though. Surprisingly great.

so I do tend to agree that overall it would be a slight negative to MLB.

I don't know that it would be a negative to MLB, but I don't see a particular positive upside either. The Bay Area market is what it is; merely moving one or the other of the franchises to a different spot within it does nothing to develop a new market.

Not exactly. I think MLB would care very much - as Kendall's 7billionth fan says above, it would be vitalizing a passive but wealthy fanbase to put their money into a team. The A's big problem isn't that they don't have "enough" fans (though they don't really have enough), it's that the fan base they do have isn't particularly valuable in an economic sense. The A's fan base is really the Berkeley-Oakland-Fremont corridor, some of the north bay, and most of Sacramento. Not really a wildly affluent group, and even in there a lot of the wealthy pockets are Giants fans b/c they want to be associated with the city (not that I blame them). Growing up as a kid in Oakland, there was a lot of Giants fandom in wealthy areas like Piedmont, and once you go through the Caldecott tunnel to wealthier suburbs like Walnut Creek you'll find as many Giants fans as A's fans, even more so now that it's more or less equally easy/hard to get to either stadium.

All of which is to say, I think MLB would gladly risk losing a percentage of the less-wealthy fans in the East Bay to try and attract more action out of the wealthier South Bay. If the A's were to move to San Jose tomorrow, I'd guess that in 10 years those wealthy mixed fandom pockets in the East Bay would be mostly Giants fans, the A's would still have the Berkeley-Oakland-Fremont corridor in the larger sense, and it would probably be 55/45 A's/Giants in the South Bay. Maybe 60/40. The A's would be somewhat wealthier than they are now but still a tick below the Giants. The Giants would be more or less the same. And, most importantly to MLB, there would now be a ton of actively involved baseball fans in the South Bay. 20 years from now is where I think you'd really see the A's take over the South Bay and be more or less equal financially to the Giants. That's why the Giants (and their fans) don't want the A's to move to San Jose - the Giants can't leverage a ton of money out of there now, but if they COULD at some point, there's a lot to be had. Right now it's all kind of sitting there.

What you say is generally true, but for this:

The Giants would be more or less the same.

I don't see it. The Giants would lose more from the South Bay then they would gain from the East Bay. That's why they're so opposed to the A's moving to SJ.

"I have zero idea how I'd get to San Jose from Berkeley without driving"

Take BART.

Thanks for the laughs, Rich.

The problem with Bay Area public transportation is not the systems. The systems are fine, except that Caltrain stops running waaaaaay too early (IIRC the second to last train is at 10:30 and the last train is at 12 with the last train at like 10 on Sunday), and the Muni suffers from the basically unfixable problem that it's slow because it runs on surface streets. The problem is that there are just an enormous number of systems. SF has Muni, East Bay has AC Transit, South Bay has VTA, then there's Caltrain, BART, and even Amtrak. I have no idea what's out there in Concord/Walnut Creek. These systems interface pretty poorly with each other. To take one example, if BART or Caltrain went to Golden Gate Park, that would be exceptionally useful, but they don't go at all to even natural transfer points for the park (or Ocean Beach, or the zoo, or really anything in the western half of the city.)

Basically, Caltrain and BART are commuter rails. They are great if you are going from point A to point B which happen to be on the lines, but the lines are so, well, linear that most destinations can't be accessed by them (compare to, say, Chicago, with a relatively complete spiderweb of trains). Of course, one thing to keep in mind is that an enormous area is involved here, with a large piece of water in the middle, so expecting an integrated network that actually goes everywhere you might want to go is perhaps not entirely realistic. But the fact that it takes 2 hours to go from Berkeley to Stanford by public transportation, just to take one example, is plain stupid.

Every difficulty the A's face has been self-inflicted, and merely moving the franchise to a different locale does nothing to address that.

Isn't this usually the case when teams "have" to move? Or in the case of the Expos, the "self" was MLB.

Isn't this usually the case when teams "have" to move?

Well, yes. Just about always, actually. I think the only franchise move in modern MLB history that was genuinely necessary, a requirement based on conditions outside of the control of the franchise, was the St. Louis Browns.

The Oakland A's fan base is really Worldwide. It just hasn't been tapped by the Oakland A's. The Athletics best marketing partnerships are with air travel agents, airlines, convention and visitors bureaus, and hotels. Getting tourists to make baseball-special trips and taking advantage of business travelers who will want to go to MLB rivalry games is the base for ticket sales. It's as important as local sales.

Genius!

I don't have any dogs in this fight but isn't the main "structural" disadvantage for the A's the fact that they're stuck in a crap stadium that doesn't generate a lot of revenue for them? From a revenue perspective, surely the A's are best off in whichever of San Jose or Oakland will give them the best stadium deal.

"I don't have any dogs in this fight but isn't the main "structural" disadvantage for the A's the fact that they're stuck in a crap stadium that doesn't generate a lot of revenue for them?"

That is most of it.

There is a secondary problem, but maybe it won't matter if they solve the first: the Giants are more popular. I think there are 3 big reasons why the Giants are more popular: 1) they were in the Bay Area first and any fans who are old or whose parents were around when the Giants first came likely developed an affection for the Giants early on, and likewise, developed a love of the Giants as part of a hatred (or jealousy) of Los Angeles and the Dodgers; 2) San Francisco is the heart of the Bay Area. Except for people (like me) from Oakland or parts close to Oakland, San Francisco is The City and its teams are the Bay Area's teams. So by that pull of emotion, the San Francisco fan base is larger than the Oakland fan base; and 3) Marketing. The Giants have always pushed their product much better, including having a great radio* and TV presence and keeping all of their old players a part of the larger Giants family.

When the Giants played at Candlestick and the A's had the really good Bash Brothers teams, the A's could draw more fans to their games. But that was more of an illusion. Even then, on radio and TV the Giants were more popular. Even if the A's get a ballpark as nice as AT and T, they probably won't have the revenues that the Giants get from radio and TV; and the A's will still have to have a good product on the field to draw fans, once the new ballpark opens. The Giants at AT and T will draw pretty well, no matter how much the team sucks.

*The A's are on a new radio station, this season, which I can easily pick up in Davis (an hour and 10 minutes from Oakland). It's been nice to hear a few of their preseason games on the radio. I think I only heard a dozen A's games on the radio all of last year. There have been years in the Sacramento market when we got no A's radio. We still don't get most of the A's broadcast TV games, but we get a few. By contrast, all of the Giants' broadcast TV games are shown here.

Anybody familiar with the ins and outs of how the Giants worked their stadium? From what I know, it seems like they're on their way to having it be a money geyser. What's to stop them from being Yankees West after that comes to pass?

Anybody familiar with the ins and outs of how the Giants worked their stadium? From what I know, it seems like they're on their way to having it be a money geyser. What's to stop them from being Yankees West after that comes to pass?

What do you want to know specifically?

They managed to get development rights for a lot of the space around the ballpark. In that sense they're like the Red Sox, in that they will play a key role in developing Mission Bay. With the Warriors being sold, there is chatter about them building a new arena south of the ballpark and if they do that they'll have to partner with the Giants.

What's to stop them from being Yankees West after that comes to pass?

Brian Sabean?

Sorry, but that was a hanging curveball for snark.

2) San Francisco is the heart of the Bay Area. Except for people (like me) from Oakland or parts close to Oakland, San Francisco is The City and its teams are the Bay Area's teams.

I don't really agree with this. I don't think there's any special pull for teams from the City that goes above or beyond the other factors you mention. Of course, I'm East Bay through and through myself. Maybe you're saying that everybody IN the city are Giants/Niners fans and everybody else is more or less evenly split, which I guess is true, but I don't think the City teams get any extra credit for being from the City anywhere else in the Greater Bay Area. Honestly, if the A's could latch on to some of the Oakland stuff going on now (the Warriors shirts and various knockoffs, the "Oaklandish" movement which is really getting huge, etc), and I don't see why they couldn't, they could start to develop some cachet of their own.

* I still don't know what radio station is playing A's games this season. KNBR probably creates the biggest advantage for the Giants over the A's outside of their respective stadia. On a related note, down here in Alameda County, Comcast just last week moved around some channels so I have two CSN's right next to each other, the CSNBA which gives precedence to Giants games, and CSNsomethingorotherelse, which I guess is the A's flagship CSN station? That's pretty cool. Although of course my TV will for the most part be permanently stuck to MLBN anyway.

I still don't know what radio station is playing A's games this season. KNBR probably creates the biggest advantage for the Giants over the A's outside of their respective stadia.

And this isn't just true now, but has been essentially true for more than 40 years. The Giants radio network has always dwarfed that of the A's, and radio coverage sustains and builds a fanbase (particularly in remote areas such as the Central Valley, Santa Cruz/Monterey, Santa Rosa etc.) far better than just a marketing/advertising campaign. Radio coverage *is* marketing, that also happens to generate its own revenue.

There is a secondary problem, but maybe it won't matter if they solve the first: the Giants are more popular. I think there are 3 big reasons why the Giants are more popular: 1) they were in the Bay Area first and any fans who are old or whose parents were around when the Giants first came likely developed an affection for the Giants early on, and likewise, developed a love of the Giants as part of a hatred (or jealousy) of Los Angeles and the Dodgers; 2) San Francisco is the heart of the Bay Area. Except for people (like me) from Oakland or parts close to Oakland, San Francisco is The City and its teams are the Bay Area's teams. So by that pull of emotion, the San Francisco fan base is larger than the Oakland fan base; and 3) Marketing. The Giants have always pushed their product much better, including having a great radio* and TV presence and keeping all of their old players a part of the larger Giants family.

When the Giants played at Candlestick and the A's had the really good Bash Brothers teams, the A's could draw more fans to their games. But that was more of an illusion. Even then, on radio and TV the Giants were more popular. Even if the A's get a ballpark as nice as AT and T, they probably won't have the revenues that the Giants get from radio and TV; and the A's will still have to have a good product on the field to draw fans, once the new ballpark opens. The Giants at AT and T will draw pretty well, no matter how much the team sucks.

This is all true, but it doesn't mean the A's can't be moderately successful in the Bay Area, given an ownership team committed to the long-term success of the franchise.

The Mets came into a situation very much like the A's did, and while they are and will likely always be the weak sister of the Yankees, they've been very successful. The White Sox are probably always going to play second fiddle to the Cubs (and were at one point mere hours from moving to St. Petersburg), but they've managed to right the ship and become a permanent presence in Chicago.

Obviously the A's aren't in New York or Chicago, but the Bay Area is big enough to support two teams. A new stadium would help (as it helped the White Sox), but unless ownership is really committed to the long-term health of the franchise, nothing will matter - the team will always struggle for survival.

I think people in SF also compare their public transit to big Eastern cities, which SF probably doesn't fare so well with.

The MTA here in NYC has seemed a worsening nightmare over the past five years in terms of the physical service it's providing.

Well, yes. Just about always, actually. I think the only franchise move in modern MLB history that was genuinely necessary, a requirement based on conditions outside of the control of the franchise, was the St. Louis Browns.

Boston Braves. Philadelphia A's (although given the respective success of the franchises, you'd have expected the Phillies to move instead).

Those cities weren't supporting two teams.

Sorry, but that was a hanging curveball for snark.

I keep hoping that people will transcend the easy jokes, but again and again I am disappointed.

* I still don't know what radio station is playing A's games this season.

They are on a new, strong, all-sports (plus some right-wingnut politics) radio station, called XTRA Sports Radio 860 AM. The signal is very clear in Davis. They also have a bigger collection of outlier affiliates (which I am copying off of their website):

KAHI 950 AM - Auburn
KATA 1340 AM - Eureka
KBLF 1490 AM - Red Bluff*
KCWH 102.3 FM - Mt. Shasta
KESP 970 AM - Modesto
KMYC 1410 AM - Marysville*
KNRO 1670 - Redding
KPOD 1240 AM - Crescent City
KRKC 1490 AM - King City
KSTN 1420 AM - Stockton
KTKZ 1380 AM - Sacramento*
KWNA 1400 AM - Winnemucca NV
KXBX 1270 AM - Lakeport

* Nights/Weekends Only

Boston Braves. Philadelphia A's (although given the respective success of the franchises, you'd have expected the Phillies to move instead).

Those cities weren't supporting two teams.

Both of those markets were and are quite sufficient to support two teams.

"I don't think there's any special pull for teams from the City that goes above or beyond the other factors you mention. ... I don't think the City teams get any extra credit for being from the City anywhere else in the Greater Bay Area."

Here is my take on that: The A's largely get Alameda County (1,474,368) and most of Contra Costa County (1,029,703).

Because of the centrality of San Francisco and the emotional pull it has in the Bay Area (which Oakland as a city does not have, despite my love for Oakland, and San Jose does not have, either), the Giants get nearly all of SF County (808,976), San Mateo County (712,690), Santa Clara County (1,764,499)*, Marin County (248,794), Napa County (133,433) and Sonoma County (466,741).

Solano County (407,515), I would guess, is mostly in the A's camp, but less so as you move east toward Vacaville and Dixon.

So in the Bay Area itself, you get a natural Giants advantage (based on my take on the population) of 3:2.

In the outlying areas, it should be split closer to 50:50, with the Santa Cruz to Monterey areas going for the Giants and the Sacramento to Modesto areas going for the A's. However, because of its superior marketing over the years (KNBR, etc.), the outlying areas are not 50:50. I would say the Sacramento area (where I live) is closer to 2:1 for the Giants. This should have changed in the last 10 years with the River Cats. Yet I don't think it has. The last 10 years the A's marketing in Sacramento has been worse than ever.

And there is one more thing that those population numbers miss: There may be 2.5 million people in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. But (mainly due to marketing) the A's just fail to attract the interest of a much larger percentage of their geographic base than the Giants attract within theirs.

*The Giants understand that if the A's move to San Jose, that puts these 2.4 million potential fans of theirs at risk (in the long run). And if the A's market themselves properly, it also puts at risk the fans from Modesto to Monterey to Santa Cruz, who can more easily get to a game in San Jose than they can in SF.

Both of those markets were and are quite sufficient to support two teams.

Boston and Philadelphia never supported two teams prior to the 1950's, when they were much larger cities relative to the entire country, both in population and total wealth.