Comments on: Does the Giants World Series win mean anything for Oakland’s move to San Jose?

By: Walk

Walk — Sat, 06 Nov 2010 22:23:51 +0000

A payment seems logical to me from the A’s to the giants. Something in line with the giants recieving the ammount of increase the a’s recieve in attendance of x number of years that they negotiate. To make this a bit more clear if the a’s increase attendance by 3,000 a game the a’s pay giants a portion, plus a portion of any loss in giants attendance. If they cant negotiate a settlement thats fair then maybe try other areas.

By: simon94022

simon94022 — Sat, 06 Nov 2010 19:19:23 +0000

Exactly right. It’s so idiotic when people talk whine that it’s “not fair” to keep the A’s out of San Jose. This is a business deal.

The current Giants ownership paid for a team that included exclusive rights to Santa Clara County. The current A’s ownership paid for a team with no rights to Santa Clara County. So the South Bay rights were priced in to both teams, and any change in those rights now will require a large payment to the Giants.

The real question is where the money will come from. When Angelos received his payoff for the Montreal-Washington move (and remember that move didn’t even impact the Orioles’ territorial rights at all), the money came from the District of Columbia, which paid 100% of the Nats stadium costs, and from the Nats, who had to surrender control of their broadcast rights forever to an Orioles-controlled cable network.

How is this going to work in San Jose? Mark Purdy and various chamber of commerce-types keep yammering for the A’s to move south, but I see no interest in spending taxpayer money to build the A’s a ballpark. So where’s the money come from to buy out the territorial rights?

By: Does the Giants WS Win Mean Anything for the A’s? | Baseballin' on a Budget

Sat, 06 Nov 2010 05:53:44 +0000

[...] found this link originally at HardballTalk, and I think Craig has it pretty much right: The Giants just won a World Series and made a bunch of money with no other team in their [...]

By: apbaguy

apbaguy — Sat, 06 Nov 2010 05:11:35 +0000

As I’ve said in previous posts, this has all the makings of an Angelos style payout, wherein the A’s pay the Giants for some extended period ti gain acquiesence for the move.

By: hackerjay

hackerjay — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 21:48:57 +0000

There’s also the issue that the people in Walnut Creek and surrounding areas are already going to Giants games and not A’s games. I live in Alameda less then five miles from the Oakland Coliseum, and I still went to more Giants games then A’s games. And it has nothing to do with which team I like better because I’m from Chicago and a huge Cubs fan. It’s just more enjoyable to go to a Giants game then an A’s game.

When/if the A’s move to San Jose the Giants won’t gain much, but they stand to lose more then 1,000,000 people that will now be able go to a game in their neighborhood rather then traveling an hour up the peninsula.

By: Ken Arneson

Ken Arneson — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 21:24:36 +0000

I think the suburb thing is a wash. You’re essentially trading Santa Clara County for Contra Costa County; the populations aren’t that different. The corporate dollars, though–that’s a huge, huge, HUGE difference.

By: IdahoMariner

IdahoMariner — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 20:55:40 +0000

okay, that, at least makes sense, since the corporations in silicon valley are way more flush than those in emeryville, or fremont, or … walnut creek? hmmm. now that i think of the suburbs, I’m back to wondering if it isn’t a wash. Maybe my knowledge of the relative cash flow around the bay area is out of date. Because while it is obvious that the silicon valley corportate world has more cash, I would think the giants would have to feel good about the cash that is in the suburbs that would now be farther from the A’s than they are now, like walnut creek and the like. those guys are used to rolling right past oakland and into downtown SF (for work), so they won’t lose the ones they have now and might pick up the ones that stuck on the east side of the bridge for the a’s. I’m not saying that Zimbalist is right, because he’s a tool. Just thinking that there are a lot of layers here.

Of course, not so many that MLB should have taken this long, damn it.

By: Craig Calcaterra

Craig Calcaterra — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 20:49:07 +0000

It’s not about how close Oakland is to San Francisco, it’s about whether the A’s are closer to Silicon Valley than the Giants are. SF is worried about corporate and suburban dollars making the shorter trip to the A’s new ballpark than up to San Francisco.

By: IdahoMariner

IdahoMariner — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 20:46:37 +0000

okay….I’m still having trouble wrapping my brain around the concept that Oakland is somehow NOT in the Giants (real, not fictional, developed only for MLB purposes) “territory” but that San Jose is. I mean, if we are talking about economic impact, does it matter, in reality, whether the A’s are across the bridge or are down the road? Can’t, since we are ultimately dealing with the fiction created by MLB, MLB simply redraw the Giants’ territory? I know I am missing something…and I have faith that in about five minutes my ignorance will draw about 40 comments, so….go.

By: Ken Arneson

Ken Arneson — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 20:44:24 +0000

It probably doesn’t mean anything to the Giants’ bottom line. It may mean that Santa Clara County voters would be more likely to approve a stadium deal for the A’s, because they’re in a good mood about baseball.