June 19, 2013
Who is Shyster?
Or you can search by:
Most Recent Comments
Sam Zell’s Nightmare Continues (11)
William S. Stevens: 1948-2008 (22)
Teixeira’s Options (18)
Cole Hamels Meets Talk Radio (23)
Appropos of nothing (4)
Shyster's Daily Circuit
Joe Posnanski Blog
Cot's Baseball Contracts
It IS About the Money
Baseball Think Factory
MLB Trade Rumors
Way Back and Gone
Bats -- NYT Baseball Blog
The Biz of Baseball
The Daily Fungo
The Common Man
Jorge Says No!
Baseball Over Here
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Gearing up for the San Jose A’sThe idea of bringing the A's to San Jose is quickly moving from thinking out loud to formal campaign:
The campaign to bring the Oakland Athletics to San Jose will be launched at the April 7 City Council meeting, city officials decided Wednesday.
Not that everyone is on board:
In the crowd were several people who spoke against the idea of building a stadium near downtown, including one man who hoisted a sign that read “A’s OK in San Jose But Not Taxes.”
"A deadening?" Is that really true? I'm no expert on San Francisco history, but my understanding was that the South Beach neighborhood -- where AT&T Park sits -- was basically homeless encampments, dilapidated warehouses, grown-over storage yards and rusty piers. Sure, the kind of development seen around the ballpark there comes with its own set of concerns -- pricing out lower income people and businesses chief among them -- but we're not talking about an even arguably vibrant working class neighborhood, are we?
Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 9:22am
General question for the board here…
From a business perspective, historically, has there ever been a pro-sports franchise that has been as bad as the A’s?
At what point is it no longer a “market” problem? History suggests they will fail no matter where they move.
Posted 03/12 at 10:11 AM
Baseball owners didn’t get to be baseball owners by making bad business decisions. Many are simply trying to maximize the value of their teams, both in terms of yearly income and resale value. If the A’s will make more money and be worth more in San Jose, they’ll move there if they can. That’s a sound business decision—and it’s probably what has been behind their seemingly-strange personnel and relocation decisions over the years, chasing ever-changing demographics.
There’s a lot of money in the San Jose area, more than there is in Oakland. Makes sense for them to move to me, if they can.
Posted 03/12 at 10:22 AM
Keith Law said...
It’s disappointing that, even with mountains of data arguing that public funding of sports facilities is a bad investment, an anti-stadium activist decided to ignore the data and lie to a reporter to state her POV.
Posted 03/12 at 10:24 AM
You know, there was a very good reason that the land in China Basin was even available at all for the Giants to build their park upon. The “deadening” happened long before the first shovel ever hit the ground. At least now, if you were lost in that part of town, you would have someone to ask for directions.
Posted 03/12 at 10:39 AM
Rob Moore said...
In 1993 I lived for about a year around a block from the eventual home plate in SF. There was practically no neighborhood there then, unless she’s talking about the one big yuppie condo development about a block further north. I have no idea what its like now.
Posted 03/12 at 11:31 AM
Rob Moore said...
OK, looking at google maps, 3 blocks… My point still stands, however.
Posted 03/12 at 11:34 AM
Ken Arneson said...
The “deadening” comment is laughable. That neighborhood is a fifty gazillion times more vibrant now than before the ballpark was built.
That said, the ballpark can’t take all the credit. The dot-com boom happenened as the ballpark was being built. Dozens and dozens of old ugly warehouses were converted to shiny office lofts to meet the demand for office space during the boom. The whole area got a total facelift, but the ballpark cachet was only a fraction of the cause.
But that’s probably when these ballpark projects actually create a positive ROI for the community—when they’re part of some larger project which is not dependent on the ballpark alone.
In San Jose’s case, the proposed site is in an upcoming transit hub neighborhood, which will create growth all by itself.
Posted 03/12 at 11:51 AM
Chris H. said...
crowhop: I don’t understand your point. Are you suggesting that there’s something inherent in the franchise that makes it doomed?
That’s not terribly rational.
Posted 03/12 at 12:02 PM
@ Chris H….
It is not rational at all. That is why I do not understand how the franchise, in existence since 1901 with a tradition-rich history of four different “dynasties” and countless stars, can’t get it right. They have had several different owners along the way, yet remain in the constant state of fiscal strife it has been in since inception. One would hope with each change, one would improve, but the A’s seem to be exactly where they were in the 30’s.
I understand it best to view the present primarily in light of the current situation and in each previous move, moving might have been the best business decision to make. Perhaps my question is more about the irony of it all as much as anything else and a move from Oakland to anywhere is probably, from a business perspective, the right thing. But looking back at it through the scope of time, it does seem quite odd, no?
Posted 03/12 at 01:08 PM
Posted 03/12 at 03:22 PM
APBA Guy said...
A couple of points:
- if you want to see for yourself what the neighborhood around China Basin used to look like, watch the original “Dirty Harry”. Numerous scenes were filmed there. Just look for the sign that says “China Basin” as cars are whizzing by.
- the current neighborhood around AT& T does owe a lot to the dot com boom. A better example of what SJ is likely to experience is when DC opened its basketball stadium on 7th St. It took a while for the neighborhood to transform, but every year it got a little better. IN SJ, with the planned transit hub, an A’s stadium will accelerate that process.
- Since the Shott ownership, the A’s have been very profitable. And the Haas ownership prior to that pursued a deliberate strategy of annual losses leading to a team sale payoff. Indeed, that was the primary business strategy pursued by clubs in that era. Since Finley sold the team they have been sound financially. Their current facility limits their ability to pay free agent prices. This makes it less likely they can go deep in the playoffs, even with Billy Beane. They want to rectify that with a new stadium in a more prosperous area.
- Keith Law’s point is on target, as usual. The detractor, in lying about the neighborhood situation in SF, weakens an otherwise appropriate concern about how the stadium will be funded, along with the capital improvements around the stadium. However, given the visceral opposition to any proposal out here, someone else is sure to make the point with more validity.
- Speaking as one fan of the beloved A’s, I’d be thrilled if they got a new stadium I could take the train to. There are two positives about their current mausoleum. Easy access, including the train, and fabulous lemonade. Trust ne on the latter point, you never appreciate it it so much on a mid summer afternoon game.
Posted 03/12 at 08:47 PM