The city of San Jose asks MLB to remove territory restrictions

LadyStanley

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
106,513
19,531
Sin City
  • Like
Reactions: Kirk Van Houten

Bucky_Hoyt

Registered User
Dec 11, 2005
607
52
Singapore

Not for the A's relocation, but for a future expansion team.

The A's gave the Giants the rights "for free" to prevent them from moving to Florida.

They have not built in the South Bay. And San Jose does not want to be blocked about potentially bringing a team to town.
The MLB has had a history of expanding into markets it previously relocated out of so maybe the Bay Area and Montreal happen? Hard to say, but I doubt a lot of folks would dislike it if that scenario played out.

I'd assume if it happened, San Jose gets an AL team.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,189
3,422
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
Here's the context...

AL and NL were two separate leagues, and "Major League Baseball" was really just a joint business venture for marketing, licensing, TV rights.

The AL-NL Agreement (from 1903!) said the OTHER LEAGUE had to approve of any market changes/relocation.

The Giants wanted to build a new stadium in San Jose after the 1989 Earthquake that disrupted the World Series and damaged Candlestick, but the NL-AL agreement says that's a relocation and requires a vote.

But (A) California earthquake reconstruction money had a DEADLINE for the Giants to request funds. (B) Baseball had to focus on the expiring CBA (C) The commissioner just died and they needed to get a new one.

The Giants got the A's to sign a letter stating that San Jose is considered part of the Bay Area Market so no vote was required and they could meet the state's reconstruction funding deadline.


The problem comes in 1999, when baseball merged the AL and NL and drew up a new MLB constitution... and accidentally changed the meaning of the San Jose letter. The new Constitution lists San Jose as exclusive Giants territory. THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF THE LETTER'S INTENTION. The letter meant "San Jose is part of OUR market" and under the old AL-NL agreement, the A's had every right to move to San Jose.

But both teams had new owners who didn't know the history. So the new Giants owner fought the A's proposed move to San Jose, and won in court. The whole thing was a practically a typo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawkeye8

No Fun Shogun

34-38-61-10-13-15
May 1, 2011
56,342
13,191
Illinois
If they want an MLB team, why don’t they just build the Athletics a Ballpark?

Because they would've spent hundreds of millions building a thing that the A's wouldn't have been able to play in due to the aforementioned territorial rights that the Giants have, making it a literal waste of money.

Giants are proof that no good deed goes unpunished.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DoyleG and Hawkeye8

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,189
3,422
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
Manfred is being extremely dumb here.

He needs to protect the Bay Area as an AL market without future rights fees. That needs to be written into the A's relocation agreement that baseball can put an AL team in the Bay Area any time it wants because the Giants were already paid for that in 1967.

Then he needs to remove the "Exclusive" language about Santa Clara county in the Constitution and next CBA quietly, without saying anything. And wait for the Giants owner to accidentally sign it without checking it -- which is how they got it in the first place.
 

gstommylee

Registered User
Jan 31, 2012
14,486
2,783
Here's the context...

AL and NL were two separate leagues, and "Major League Baseball" was really just a joint business venture for marketing, licensing, TV rights.

The AL-NL Agreement (from 1903!) said the OTHER LEAGUE had to approve of any market changes/relocation.

The Giants wanted to build a new stadium in San Jose after the 1989 Earthquake that disrupted the World Series and damaged Candlestick, but the NL-AL agreement says that's a relocation and requires a vote.

But (A) California earthquake reconstruction money had a DEADLINE for the Giants to request funds. (B) Baseball had to focus on the expiring CBA (C) The commissioner just died and they needed to get a new one.

The Giants got the A's to sign a letter stating that San Jose is considered part of the Bay Area Market so no vote was required and they could meet the state's reconstruction funding deadline.


The problem comes in 1999, when baseball merged the AL and NL and drew up a new MLB constitution... and accidentally changed the meaning of the San Jose letter. The new Constitution lists San Jose as exclusive Giants territory. THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF THE LETTER'S INTENTION. The letter meant "San Jose is part of OUR market" and under the old AL-NL agreement, the A's had every right to move to San Jose.

But both teams had new owners who didn't know the history. So the new Giants owner fought the A's proposed move to San Jose, and won in court. The whole thing was a practically a typo.

they won in court cause of the anti-trust exemption the league has.
 

Big Z Man 1990

Registered User
Jun 4, 2011
2,570
368
Don't say anything at all
The PCL's heyday included Oakland, not San Jose, and thus the new second Bay Area team should be in Oakland. I want MLB one day to have teams in all cities where the PCL had teams in during its heyday. Right now, only two such cities don't have an MLB team - Portland and Sacramento. Portland would enter MLB in my proposed 40-team alignment, and Sacramento in my proposed 48-team alignment. San Jose should have the top farm team of the Giants.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad