Skip to content

Major League Baseball gives the A’s “tentative guidelines” for a move to San Jose

Feb 21, 2013, 5:39 PM EDT

San Jose postcard

First off: this does not mean anything is happening. Indeed, the only comment Major League Baseball would give regarding the story was that Bud Selig’s four year-old committee “continues to work hard on this very complex, complicated situation.”  But this is at least something. Bill Shaikin reports:

The commissioner’s office has provided the Oakland Athletics with tentative guidelines for a potential move to San Jose … The existence of the guidelines does not necessarily mean the A’s will move to San Jose soon, or at all. However, if the A’s can satisfy the concerns of the league office, Commissioner Bud Selig could let club owners decide whether to approve the move.

What those conditions are are anyone’s guess. It could be the invention of a working perpetual motion machine and the A’s would still stand a better chance of moving than if we waited for the committee to actually do something.

But whatever the case, a vote, at this point, would be nice.

  1. jkcalhoun - Feb 21, 2013 at 5:45 PM

    All in favor say A.

  2. losangelesfan - Feb 21, 2013 at 5:52 PM

    Great! They’ll have the A’s and the 49ers, if this works out. I was hopeing they’d move to Soledad. Why, you ask? Because it’s happening in Soledad!

    • bayarea510 - Feb 21, 2013 at 6:17 PM

      Well, technically Santa Clara has the 49ers not San Jose.

      • pipkin42 - Feb 21, 2013 at 9:37 PM

        The only way I can ever tell the difference is the signs on 101 change from “Santa Clara” to “San Jose” and vice versa.

  3. APBA Guy - Feb 21, 2013 at 8:21 PM

    Marine Layer, aka Rhamesis Muncada, the master of all things NewBallpark related, thinks this story is primarily “click bait” for the LA Times, due mainly to the absence of any detail in the story, ie, what are the guidelines.

    Another point he makes, one that’s forgotten too often, is that every year that the A’s stay in Oakland past their lease termination date of 2014 is really a “win” for the Giants, in that the A’s stay crippled financially relative to the Giants.

    Some assert the existence of a Giants plan to drive the A’s out of the Bay Area altogether, one that moves another step closer to reality with each year that the A’s remain in Oakland and not in San Jose (or equivalent South Bay location.) Larry Baer on Clubhouse Confidential seemed to inch, and I mean inch, towards a less obstructionist posture, but many suspect this was simply PR on his part. Talk is cheap, after all.

    As are stories with no detail. Click bait, indeed.

    • jkcalhoun - Feb 22, 2013 at 10:00 AM

      Would you please explain to me what the Giants have done to make the A’s continued operation in their own territory untenable?

      Or should I be asking the “some” who make the assertion you attribute to them?

  4. Old Gator - Feb 22, 2013 at 12:28 AM

    So there really is a San Jose?

    • chumthumper - Feb 22, 2013 at 10:18 AM

      San Jose: Don’t trust any air you can’t see.

  5. marcinhouston - Feb 22, 2013 at 1:16 AM

    If the A’s can satisfy the condition of convincing more fortune 500 tech companies to be headquartered in Oakland than in San Jose, and can identify a prime tract for building a stadium in Oakland, and will grant territorial rights to Oakland to the Giants, then they can move to San Jose. These are the only conditions the greedy Giants will sign off on, after the A’s gave them the rights when the Giants were supposed to move there and changed their minds.

  6. ahuophfe - Feb 22, 2013 at 3:50 AM

    Reblogged this on bnfblogs.

  7. Tick - Feb 22, 2013 at 11:57 AM

    Not sure how this complex or complicated. You either tell the Giants that you don’t own the rest of the Bay Area, so quit whining and SJ is no longer yours or you tell the A’s, no dice, make Oakland work or move to another state. Seems fairly simple.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. D. Span (1865)
  2. Y. Puig (1863)
  3. G. Springer (1843)
  4. H. Olivera (1822)
  5. C. Sabathia (1794)