OT: Oakland MLB without lease for 2014 at O.co stadium

[Melrose Munch]

Silicon Valley, nothing else really needs to be said about it. Certainly more money in San Jose than Oakland.


The issue I have with the Giants standing tough on this is that they were ceded San Jose in an act of goodwill by the Athletics when the Giants were having their own issues in getting their stadium built. They're technically within their rights to do this, but that doesn't make them any less of ***** for doing so.

Well the A's were planning to move to SF themselves.

 

[Glacial]

So is that Twitter exchange saying MLB could force SF to accept Oakland in the SF stadium, but cant force them to accepting Oakland in SJ??

As it stands, the A's are without a lease. MLB has the power to coerce teams to share their stadium with another team if they are the nearest stadium. As noted, both NYC & LA teams shacked up for a time. If anything were to happen to one Chicago team for whatever reason, and if the other team's owner balked, MLB has the power to force him to capitulate and accept sharing the ballpark with another team temporarily. MLB won't let a team fold or go on hiatus. Now, it gets tricky if there is no nearby stadium. The Mariners supposedly, when a chunk of the Kingdome fell on the field, were going to play at a WA minor league ballpark, but the strike happened (I recall reading something about being a road team too if the deal fell through, though that was for the final stretch of a season. This is where the A's play for the foreseeable future).

The crazy part is, wouldn't the whole process of getting anything built in California take about 5 years? When did they file the 1st environmental impact assessment for AT&T Park? Even if San Jose were greenlit now, it would be years til a stadium could open.



And on Bay Area territory. Unlike the other shared markets (NYC, LA, Chicago), the Bay Area is divided into 2 separate territories (note that more teams share areas outside their metro. The Cardinals & Royals share Missouri, the Indians & Reds share Ohio, etc). It's odd because there was a 3 year gap between the Dodgers & Angels arriving and they share and a 10 year gap between the Giants & A's but they don't share. The short of it is: South Bay (San Jose/Silicon Valley) used to belong to the A's but 20 years ago, their owner, for the good of Bay Area baseball, ceded the land to the Giants so they can build a stadium there. It was only to be temporary, contingent on the Giants building there. They didn't. That plan fell through and a plan to build in SF went through to completion (AT&T Park). The problem is the Giants kept that land and viciously defend it. And the current owner of the Giants bought the team for pennies on the dollar. He bought the team with a steep discount *and* 'got' a whole block of territory, valuable territory, for nothing. The A's behaved very selflessly 20 years ago, the Giants now have acted incredibly selfish. This entire mess only exists because the Giants/A's are the only teams that have specified territory within the same market.

Now, I think the Commissioner can force a resolution but it's not Selig's style. He's a consensus builder. Problem is, the Giants want to bully the A's out of the Bay Area to have it all for themselves. Normally, it needs a 3/4ths vote of the owners to approve the territory shift (what we don't know is why the Giants claim isn't nullified. I haven't seen the actual text of the transfer. Unless it was all verbal and Giants are treating it like a fait accompli) though I think the Commissioner has the power to crack skulls "for the good of baseball" but he seems unlikely to ever go out on a limb like that. Months ago I heard some owners have voiced support for the A's and ending this debacle.

All the cross-hatched areas are shared territory. It gets to be a freaking mess in Iowa, Nevada, et al (people have complained about blacked out games because so many teams claim it for years).

 

[Bear of Bad News]

The Mariners supposedly, when a chunk of the Kingdome fell on the field, were going to play at a WA minor league ballpark, but the strike happened (I recall reading something about being a road team too if the deal fell through, though that was for the final stretch of a season.

The MLBPA rejected the Mariners' proposal to play their game at Cheney Stadium (home of the AAA Tacoma Tigers), and the Mariners would have finished the 1994 season on the road if the strike had not occurred.

 

[LadyStanley]

Seeing on twitter that a term of 2 years is being discussed as well for O.co lease.

 

[LadyStanley]

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/11/04/5880030/lew-wolff-athletics-staying-put.html#mi_rss=Sports

Oakland's owner saying team will play at O.co next season (even though won't give any details on proposed lease). From Monday quotes.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

Steven Tavares ‏@eastbaycitizen 57m
Coliseum Authority approves 2-yr lease with @Athletics. #oaccamtg