The Oakland A's of Fremont/San Jose/Sacramento/Portland

[NoCalMike 0]

As ab A's fan they have definately done enough on paper to make them at least fun to watch again. Last season was difficult to get though, especially post-trade deadline.

 

Lets hope they can get the most out of the FA signings, and the young pitching comes along like it always seems to.

 

Also, I read a story saying any move to Fremont is officially dead. Lets hope this opens the door for a move to Sacramento, (yeah right, but *crosses fingers* anyway)

[Darthtiki 0]

I'm trying to figure how you'd pull that off, unless they were to expand Raley Field (which West Sac would be willing to invest in). However, I'd be curious how to expand on that without ruining the sightlines which has the skyline beyond the outfield.

[NoCalMike 0]

I'm trying to figure how you'd pull that off, unless they were to expand Raley Field (which West Sac would be willing to invest in). However, I'd be curious how to expand on that without ruining the sightlines which has the skyline beyond the outfield.

 

 

Well if I remember correctly, the Fremont stadium was going to be the smallest capacity stadium in MLB already, so you wouldn't really have to expand Raley Field THAT much, I think the Fremont stadium maxed out in the mid to upper 30k, and Raley Field, including grass seats can get up to 20k, I believe.

 

Hell I'd definately accept having a smaller stadium capacity if it meant a more intimate die-hard fan atmosphere, over some bloated 60k stadium that is 2/3rd empty every night and has more visting fans attending anytime a big city team comes through.

 

Sacramento has already showed it has a die hard fan base that will support the team, look at the Kings and the Rivercats.

 

It would be nice, but yeah it's probably a pipedream.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Hell I'd definately accept having a smaller stadium capacity if it meant a more intimate die-hard fan atmosphere, over some bloated 60k stadium that is 2/3rd empty every night and has more visting fans attending anytime a big city team comes through.

 

I find the opposite. Smaller capacity stadiums tend to invite higher priced seats for the remaining tickets, which are filled by corporate types. It's easier for your common fan to be a diehard when they can buy $5 outfield seats and attend more often.

[Guest Czech please!]

The minimum capacity for any major league park should be 40,000. That the A's and Marlins were trying to build parks with 31,000 seats is farcical. Also, that park in Sacramento is just an average AAA stadium and if expanded would look jury-rigged and shitty. I don't think the rest of the American League would be keen on playing road games at a AAA park. Also I can't compute how moving from one of the largest media markets to one of the smallest would make them more money.

[NoCalMike 0]

The minimum capacity for any major league park should be 40,000. That the A's and Marlins were trying to build parks with 31,000 seats is farcical. Also, that park in Sacramento is just an average AAA stadium and if expanded would look jury-rigged and shitty. I don't think the rest of the American League would be keen on playing road games at a AAA park. Also I can't compute how moving from one of the largest media markets to one of the smallest would make them more money.

 

It doesn't seem like Oakland is a major media market or at least the way the A's are treated, I mean they are pretty much totally overshadowed by the Raiders and even the San Francisco teams. The A's struggle to get any type of coverage outside of their home base city, while the Giants seem to have syndication for their games in every city/town/suburb within a 300 mile radius.

 

It just feels like they are treated as "that other team" the local media has to cover, where as in a place like Sacramento they would be the feature during baseball season, especially in a time like now where the Kings are god awful.

 

I always thought Raley Field was pretty sweet for an AAA stadium, what are you basing the "average" label on, the size?facilities?design? It certainly can't be labeled that because of attendance or enthusiasm, which I'd say is one of the tops in the league, of course having the A's farm system team doesn't hurt as they regularly produce excellent prospects.

 

Right now on an average weeknight game of baseball, the A's are barely drawing enough folks to fill up Raley Field as it is.

[Bored 0]

Oakland is of course part of the San Francisco Bay Area television market which is the 4th largest t.v. market in the country behind only New York, L.A., and Chicago. Granted they are sharing the market but it's been perfectly capable of supporting two teams for 40 years and there's little reason that that can't continue. If the A's are going anywhere, it will be San Jose.

 

Just think if the owners hadn't stepped in and prevented the Giants from moving to Tampa in 1993 we wouldn't even be having this conversation. That's a great "What If?" scenario because if the Giants had moved it's unlikely they'd sign Barry Bonds that offseason and of course the Devil Rays would have never come into existence.

[Guest Czech please!]

There's no such thing as an "Oakland media market," Mike, just Greater San Francisco. How much of the Athletics' snubbing is their own fault? Do they not market themselves well? Roidy McFuckface is gone, so the Giants are just expensive and bad. The A's are cheaper and better. Capitalize on that?, maybe?

 

I don't get this "territory" thing in northern California, by the way. The territories in other crosstown situations are coterminous: what belongs to the Dodgers belongs to the Angels, Yankees = Mets, Cubs = White Sox, even if one team's fans are concentrated in specific areas of that territory. Even the Astros and Rangers have an equal claim to the whole state of Texas. Why do the Giants insist that Santa Clara County is theirs and theirs alone? Their territories should be identical, and it's a good thing that the commissioner's office is looking into rectifying this.

[JaMarcus Russell's #1 Caucasian Fan 0]

The Bay Area is in such in a small concentrated space, that you can't help but to have these territories. I'd guess the Giants/49ers territory goes from the City to San Jose (Palo Alto, Santa Clara and Silicon Valley are included) and the Raider/A's territory includes Oakland and the whole East Bay (which includes Fremont all the way up to Richmond). The Warriors, I'm guessing, get the whole Bay Area to themselves.

 

I'm not from the Bay Area, but I've visited there many times. I'm pretty close, right Bay Area TSMers?

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I think the biggest problem with the A's right now as far as marketing is that they are on an extremely low power radio station.

[Bored 0]

Very quickly on the whole "territory rights" thing. The Giants acquired the territory rights to San Jose back in 1989 when they tried to get a ballot measure passed to help build them a new stadium there, which the voters ended up voting against. These rights have become meaningless ever since they had their new park built in San Francisco in 2000 but Bud Selig has enforced them when it has come to any other prior inquiry into a possible new stadium being built for the A's there. But back in January when the Fremont deal was falling apart Selig wrote a letter to the A's owner Lew Wolff that didn't outright say that the A's could look into moving San Jose but has been interpreted as such that he would waive the territory rights if the are able to broker a deal for a new park there. Obviously the Giants would get some sort of financial compensation if such a move happens.

 

And al nailed one of the big problems A's have had in the past, although I believe the station they moved to this year has a much bigger wattage than past stations. But that's also been the problem is the A's seemingly change stations every couple of years. The Giants on the other hand have KNBR the #1 sports talk station in the country as their flagship who serve as a 365 day a year hype machine for the franchise.

[YourKock'sReallyGreat 0]

How much more popular would the A's be in Oakland if they won a playoff series or two in the early 2000's? From 2000-2003 they lost 4 straight game 5's in the first round and in 2004 they missed the playoffs by one game. If they won half of the series they played in that would have been 2 ALCS and maybe 1 World Series appearance. The 2002 team blew a 2-1 lead against the Twins and lost game 5 at home. Lets not forget that the 2001 and 2003 teams both blew 2-0 leads. 2001 they lost series clinching games at home in games 3 and 4. Both the 2000 and 2003 teams lost game 5 at home as well. The 2004 team had a 3 game lead with 10 left to play and lost 4 out of 6 in the last 10 games and lost 4 out of 6 at home to end the season.

 

If they had won a playoff series or two that would have lead to increased revenue. It could/would have increased fan excitement, future ticket sales, increased tv and radio ratings, merchandise sales, etc. Would the ownership have kept the Hudson, Giambi,Tejada, Dye, Damon etc if they had won and fans came out 40k a night? The A's had a great nucleus of young players who in my opinion could/should have been the next Dynasty in baseball after the Yankees.

 

Another thing to mention is attendance numbers for the team from 2000-2008. Attendance in 1999 when they were an above average team and 2000 a playoff team was around 1.6 million. In 2001 it jumped up to 2.1 million and peaked the next couple of years at around 2.2 million. The last several years with being a sub 500 team attendance has dropped to 1.6 million.

[Precious Roy 0]

In retrospect it seems they were wise to trade Mulder and Hudson when they did, and to let Zito go when he hit free agency. He was already in decline in Oakland, it's still amazing to me how much money he was able to get from San Fran. The Haren trade I question a bit, but it remains to be seen how all the prospects they got will pan out. Moving Harden when they did was obviously a good move given his injury history.

 

Oakland is a team that has a clear philosophy of staying within a budget and restocking with prospects whenever possible. So far it hasn't resulted in success on a grand scale, but for a team that is consistently in the lower half of payrolls I'm always impressed by what they're able to accomplish. For as much hype and praise as he gets Billy Beane really is one of the better GMs in the league. I don't think they ever really had a realistic shot at keeping Giambi or Damon. Their biggest mistake may have been signing Chavez to a big contract over Tejada, but in the long run keeping Tejada wouldn't have been that great of a plan either.

[YourKock'sReallyGreat 0]

Well the discussion earlier was how the A's dd not draw enough to fill up a 30'000 seat stadium. I was trying to point out how earlier this decade the team was a contender year in and year out from 1999-2006 to win the World Series. They made the playoffs 5 times from 2000-2006 but only won one play off series that being in 2006. I was opening up a debate as to what would have happened to the team if they won a couple of playoff series during their great run in the early 2000's. The team had a ton of talent and should have won at least 1 World Series. The problem though is that they lost game 5 at home every year in the first round.

 

I think that the A's would have become a larger market team if they had won a couple of playoff series, made it to the World Series, won the World Series. A couple of deep playoff runs would have led to increased attendance, tv and radio ratings, merchandise sales, etc. The team could have a payroll of around 90-100 million and drawing 35-40k every night.

 

The Rays could quite possible become the 2nd coming of the early 2000 A's. This is in terms of young talent, smaller market team while playing in a tough division.

[Guest Czech please!]

I need to note that Precious Roy has one of the best signatures on the board.

 

Anyway, the Marlins won the World Series twice and drew under 400 people to a game a year or two ago. I'm convinced the team just doesn't know how to market itself or something. The A's have had a great deal of success. You'd think they'd at least be able to parlay that into a radio partner that covers more than a square mile. I will note that they were smart to let all of their players go, because almost everyone that has left Oakland in the last twenty years has been some sort of time bomb. They're almost all either guilty of using illegal steroids; or they crumble like a nice piece of whitefish, most likely from using illegal steroids. McGwire's a fraud. Canseco's a fraud. Giambi's a fraud. Tejada's a fraud. Zito, Mulder, and Harden all suspiciously fell apart. Tony La Russa is just kind of a general scumbag who continues to enable drug abusers. As I've said before, I think we're going to discover that part of "exploiting market inefficiencies" was BALCO.

[Bored 0]

Yes, the only reason the A's ever won anything was because of steroids and BALCO. You've cracked the case Czech!

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

The Cubs clearly need to get themselves some of that Balco.

[Guest Czech please!]

Yes, the only reason the A's ever won anything was because of steroids and BALCO. You've cracked the case Czech!

I didn't say that, Bored, you dumb dick. I said the Bay Area has been the vector of some very suspicious people.

[Bored 0]

Sorry but your summation of what has happened to A's players after they left Oakland deserved a snarky response. And what did the Cubs have Harden on last year? Must have been some good shit since he was never healthy at at any point of his career with the A's despite their apparent large cache of illegal PEDs. And when has Barry Zito, who has never been on the DL, fallen apart physically? He is still in the Bay Area and we all know the Giants have had those precious BALCO connections in the past. Is it possible, he's just not that good of a pitcher?

 

Czech, who you crappin'?

[Guest Czech please!]

Is it also possible that the climate of drug abuse in baseball has drastically changed between 2002 and 2008, thus making it irrelevant where Zito is? Why is it so hard to acknowledge that there's something sketchy about this team? I'm not trying to make it personal here. I'm just saying.

 

Harden was not healthy with the Cubs last year nor is he healthy this year, by the way.

[Bored 0]

Zito also had one of his best seasons in 2006 and steroid testing had already been implemented in 2004 and testing for amphetamines began that season, so what exactly was he still taking? He threw a lot of innings early in his career and isn't nearly as effective as he once was, hardly a unique scenario. Although I freely admit, as I assume you would as well, that we have still have a very small grasp on who did and didn't use illegal PEDs in the past 30-40 years. While it's true the A's have had players who used in the past so did every other team in baseball. To single them out is unfair in my opinion.

 

Plus obviously their shit didn't work in the playoffs.

[Guest Czech please!]

Incidentally, the radio coverage for the A's doesn't look THAT bad to me, at least for day games:

It says they're a Class B, so they must have to get out of somebody's way at night though I don't know which station offhand. Of course you're going to waste a lot of space on the ocean but such is life on the coasts. The White Sox cover 38 states. They don't even need to cover 38 neighborhoods.

[geniusMoment 0]

Holy shit, a whole page of A's talk! What's going on here?

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

How many day games is your typical team playing though?

 

That nighttime map is putrid. Take a look at what the Giants offer on a Class A station.

 

 

The Giants are running a strong signal all the way north to Chico, CA.

[Bored 0]

And as I mentioned earlier, the Giants are on the #1 sports talk station in the country so it's a perfect fit for them. The A's over the years have been on oldies, country, and I think even a religious station at one point. Their new station this year is primarily conservative talk radio and we all know the Bay Area is a hot bed for conservative values.

 

Holy shit, a whole page of A's talk! What's going on here?

Hey a I tried to change the subject with the Vlad aging story so don't blame me. A's are the new Red Sox!

 

Speaking of the A's, Bobby Crosby wants to be traded. Anyone in the market for a .239/.306/.380 hitting shortstop who's defense is declining and is made of porcelin, today is your lucky day.

[Guest Vitamin X]

If the A's were in Portland, they'd get a great signal out here, especially if they're on the same station that the Blazers are on. I don't want to clutter up the page with more map pictures, so here it is. Pretty good coverage for a Class B, although it's screwed east of the Cascades.

[Bored 0]

Portland is an even smaller market that Sacramento. Not gonna happen.

[Guest Vitamin X]

The hell you smoking? Portland is larger than Sacramento.

 

To expand on that further, Portland is the 23rd largest media market in the U.S., just a bit below Denver and Baltimore and larger than current MLB cities Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Austin, and yes fucking Sacramento.

[Guest Czech please!]

Austin hasn't a major league team. I'm sure it has a lot of major-league douchebags, though.

 

Portland would be a good location for the A's, but I'd rather see them get an expansion team when the American League inevitably must expand. How is Portland in terms of outlying areas it can call its own? Would Eugene and the rest of the state of Oregon be reliably behind a Portland team, or would they stick to the Giants, Mariners, whoever?

 

I think Sacramento is just ahead of Portland, but TV market size, radio market size, and metro population size all tend to shake out differently past NY-LA-Chicago depending on how you count certain cities and other metrics and so forth. Let's call 'em even.

[Bored 0]

The hell you smoking? Portland is larger than Sacramento.

 

To expand on that further, Portland is the 23rd largest media market in the U.S., just a bit below Denver and Baltimore and larger than current MLB cities Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Austin, and yes fucking Sacramento.

Might want to cite a source on that because per DMA Sacramento is ranked ahead of Portland.

 

And really this is all pointless because the A's aren't going anywhere any time soon. The only possible move for them in the next ten years is San Jose, anywhere else is pure fantasy.