Read all of Mark Purdy's column here on the San Jose Mercury News website

Purdy: The San Jose A's of Fremont?

By Mark Purdy
The San Jose Mercury News

The fuss over Barry Bonds, first in drag and then under suspicion, has obscured the other major Bay Area baseball story of the spring.

No matter what happens with Bonds, in a year or two -- maybe even sooner -- he will no longer be playing baseball in the Bay Area.

Will the A's?

The answer to that question has more long-range implications for Northern California sports fans. When we last left the saga of the Athletics' attempt to assemble a new ballpark deal, the team was pursuing a potential project in Oakland, not far from the team's home at McAfee Coliseum. That would prevent a move to Las Vegas or Portland or wherever.

But guess what? There is a delicious twist to the story that is running white hot on the baseball grapevine: Within a few weeks, A's owner Lew Wolff will announce that because the Oakland deal is going nowhere, he will abandon those plans. And he will cast his glance southward -- to Fremont, where there is plenty of available land to build a ballpark complex.

Wait. There's more.

As we all know, the Giants possess the territorial rights to Santa Clara County, which ostensibly prevents the A's from moving to San Jose or Santa Clara or anywhere else within the borders of the Bay Area's most heavily populated county.

No problem. Wolff has supposedly come up with a novel plan.

He will move his franchise to Fremont, just north of the Santa Clara County line.

But the team will be known as the San Jose A's.

Could that happen? Absolutely. If you have followed the recent business of baseball, then you know that in Southern California, fans now buy tickets to see the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. So why not the San Jose A's of Fremont? Makes sense.

This is no fly-by-night rumor, understand. It has been flying in both daytime and nighttime, around the official corridors of San Jose power. One city council member even mentioned it at a recent public meeting.

To find out if this conjecture has any meat on it, I called Wolff the other day. He did not deny that Fremont is on his imminent radar.

``It's pretty much what I've said all along,'' Wolff explained, ``which is that by the beginning of the new season, if we don't have a solid path to a particular venue in the city of Oakland, we're going to look elsewhere. That doesn't mean we won't continue to look in Oakland, and at this stage, my feeling is we should try and do everything we can to stay in the East Bay and South Bay areas. Fremont hasn't been hidden. There may be some opportunities there. . . . I think we're following the game plan I said I would months ago.''

But what about the prospect of the team wearing uniforms embroidered with ``San Jose'' across the front?

``We haven't really thought about the name of the team,'' Wolff said. ``We've been the Oakland A's for a long time. I would consider that aspect something way down the road. . . . Obviously, if we moved in that direction, we're moving closer to the San Jose market. It's not an illogical thought. But I'm following the rules of baseball.''

The rules of baseball, interestingly enough, do not say anything about what the name of the team must be. That's supposed to be negotiated along with a ballpark deal, wherever that ballpark might be. When new Angels owner Arte Moreno decided two years ago that the Anaheim Angels would become the Los Angeles Angels, the city of Anaheim sued to have its name reinstated ahead of the nickname -- and lost.

Would the Giants have any issues with Wolff's move? Not if you go by the comments of Giants owner Peter Magowan over the years. As far back as June 2000, Magowan said: ``If the A's want to go to Fremont, we won't have a problem at all.''

Of course, that was before any mention of the name game. But what could Magowan do to stop it? Placing the ``San Jose'' brand on the A's would allow the team to market more aggressively to Northern California's largest city -- and the Silicon Valley companies that surround it. Santa Clara County has more Fortune 500 companies than San Francisco and Alameda counties combined.

The property in Fremont that the A's allegedly covet is a 143-acre parcel controlled by Cisco Systems, which acquired the land during the Silicon Valley boom as a potential expansion site. That site, along Interstate 880 at the Auto Mall Parkway exit, is just 7.9 miles from the Santa Clara County border. The A's current home, McAfee Coliseum, is 7.2 miles from Oakland's City Hall.

A spokesperson for Cisco recently told my Mercury News colleague Barry Witt that the company is ``not actively marketing this property for sale, but we would entertain unsolicited offers on it.'' Another potential site for an A's ballpark is located near the Nummi auto plant, not far away.

Regardless, by moving to Fremont, the A's would basically become a South Bay team. That's why the territorial ``rights'' thing is so silly. We're talking about an arbitrary line on a map, nothing more.

That is why, in some circles, the speculation goes another step. The Fremont plan might spur San Jose, in the baby-steps stage of its own ballpark proposal, to move ahead aggressively in pursuit of the A's. Wolff would then go to Magowan and say, ``Look, if I go to Fremont and call the team the San Jose A's, the Giants get nothing. But if you agree to let me actually move the team to San Jose, you'll get some compensation. How about it?''

That seems a little out there, but you never know. This could get really wild. You're probably wondering why Fremont would go along with this plan, for instance. But if, as part of the package, Wolff agrees to develop a mixed-use ``ballpark village'' around the ballpark, the project would be an immense tax boost for Fremont.

And what would San Jose have to provide in exchange for its name on the team? Perhaps the city would provide more favorable terms for the soccer stadium Wolff is thinking seriously about building downtown in conjunction with a franchise he might control.

No matter what, you get the feeling that even though the A's ballpark issue has been around for years, the ride is really just starting. And it's going to be a wild one.

Contact Mark Purdy at mpurdy@mercurynews.com or (408) 920-5092.

Again, I just feel like the A's will not be leaving the Bay Area at all. I known the "look South" statement was thrown out there a while back, but the owners in my opinion would be foolish to leave the East Bay. There are way to many opportunities in the East Bay to stay there, that going outside of the area does not make any business sense! I honestly believe we need to keep one eye the twins and the other on the Royals; the Marlins, well we can use them as a "learned lesson", not realistic at this point.

If you believe the A's are only looking to stay in the Bay area you would be off base, they are keeping all options open. There are many in baseballs power brokers that are not real fans of two teams in the area also. I am sure they have looked at this option but I know they are looking into others also.

Offbase? Probably not. I beleive the A's with their current ownership group and vast population in the Bay Area will continue to look at every possible suitor in that area until they find a new home. Where they are now is not that dire, so they have time and trust there are a lot of places in that area, so the chances of them getting something built on the East side will happen eventually.

quote:

I honestly believe we need to keep one eye the twins and the other on the Royals; the Marlins, well we can use them as a "learned lesson", not realistic at this point.

The Royals are going to sign a new lease at Kaufman...The bond issue in KC is being voted on in April and it's for improvements to Kauf and Arrowhead...If they pass it, the NFL has promised Arrowhead will host a Superbowl by 2012. It won't fail...KC loves the Chiefs and them and the Royals have both promised to re-up the leases for another 25 years each if (when) the bond passes..

As for Minnehaha....The Twinkies aren't leaving, Polahd won't live forever and the people of Minnesota are prepared to wait him out....Besides...Selig and MLB would face anti-trust for shady dealings with a loan Budsmoke took from Carl....That was the first thing and one of the biggest things that killed the used car dealers idea of contraction...

The Vikes will move before the Twins do...And I don't see Ziggy Wilf loading up Mayflowers at the Metrodome..

And the A's....Well....San Jose has it's act together...I don't see how the Giants can claim a territory that doesn't want to be claimed...
Again...Anti-Trust...If the Giants break up a deal between SJ and the A's I think, make that know, that a lawsuit will emerge and McGowan will have to bite the bullet and go away with a payout that isn't what he'll think of as fair...

Right now it's "Look North"...As in come to my state where we push pols into the sports biz so ya'll can have a place to spend a weekend watching games and dropping cash into our economy...Again....Be nice, don't **** off Harry Potter (or whatever that j/a of a mayor's name is) and enjoy rooting for the SEATTLE Mariners for the next...Ever....

Not trying to be mean, just trying not to spin it...Do you see "nice" DC fans...Nope...Because they have the cajones to fight dirty...

quote:

And the A's....Well....San Jose has it's act together.

You haven't been watching this story in a bit.

San Jose's been running rudderless since the mayor was censured. The mayor's people have tried to get the ballpark measure on the November ballot despite his weakened lame duck status. Cooler heads prevailed so it's not likely until June 2007. Right now SJ's strategy is based on a hope or expectation of nothing panning out in the East Bay. The encouraging thing for them is that Wolff has started to mention SJ more frequently in his public statements. Should the East Bay options not pan out, San Jose will be in good position. I feel a little more secure about Wolff/Fisher since they're not perceived in the Bay Area as carpetbaggers (Loria/Samson), plus they have shown a more methodical approach to getting a ballpark than the Marlins. There's no doubt that they have other options outside the Bay Area under consideration, but considering what the A's are looking for any outside offers are going to have to completely bowl them over.

Question, Rhamesis...

Rule 52 of the MLB Constitution places a 15 mile buffer around territories. Do you know if the Fremont site is more than 15 miles from the edge of Santa Clara Co.?

quote:

The property in Fremont that the A's allegedly covet is a 143-acre parcel controlled by Cisco Systems, which acquired the land during the Silicon Valley boom as a potential expansion site. That site, along Interstate 880 at the Auto Mall Parkway exit, is just 7.9 miles from the Santa Clara County border.

Maruy, this was from the article above - Fremont site 7.9 miles from the Santa Clara/Alameda County border, and that means just 7.9 miles from the San Jose city limits, which border partly on Alameda County. It's probably 15 or so from downtown.

Maury, you may recall that we had an exchange about this after you wrote your MLB Constitution article. There's a definite gray area here. On one hand, the 15-mile rule would appear to apply because the Pacific Commons site is 8 miles north of the Santa Clara County border. On the other hand, it is still within Alameda County. So which rule takes precedence? I can see a sort of selective enforcement taking place. When the Giants moved closer to Oakland by virtue of Pac Bell Park, they were well within 15 miles of Oakland/Alameda County. Were they violating Rule 52? In the end it all appears to be subject to Selig-Reinsdorf interpretation. Since neither Selig nor DuPuy have apparently told Wolff to back off on this Fremont situation, my guess is that Rule 52 is not applicable in this case.

quote:

Originally posted by marine layer:
I can see a sort of selective enforcement taking place. When the Giants moved closer to Oakland by virtue of Pac Bell Park, they were well within 15 miles of Oakland/Alameda County. Were they violating Rule 52? In the end it all appears to be subject to Selig-Reinsdorf interpretation. Since neither Selig nor DuPuy have apparently told Wolff to back off on this Fremont situation, my guess is that Rule 52 is not applicable in this case.

I agree on this.

I can see the rules being bent here, more so than flaunting a direct breach of the rules ala San Jose.

There are certainly a host of reasons on allowing for a relocation within the region, as opposed to a more dramatic relocation outside the area.

In a related story, I see the A's are working on a regional broadcast deal in Sacramento. Seems the issue is finding the proper programming format in which to strike the deal in. Seems programming options in SacTown and baseball are a difficult fit, at the moment.

quote:

Originally posted by marine layer:
I can see a sort of selective enforcement taking place. When the Giants moved closer to Oakland by virtue of Pac Bell Park, they were well within 15 miles of Oakland/Alameda County. Were they violating Rule 52? In the end it all appears to be subject to Selig-Reinsdorf interpretation.

I'm no attorney but if Rule 52 was not considered at that time then absolutely yes it would be selective reinforcement. But if they did look at it at the time and settle the issue (perhaps, in part, taking into account the fact that there is only a single entry point, the Bay Bridge, within the 15 mile range of Pac Bell Park), then I suppose it wouldn't.

Regardless, I think that if they can position/leverage Fremont as was mentioned in the article (out of "rule 52" range but convenient to San Jose), then that could definitely loosen things up for a feasible settlement between Magowan and the A's for a potential move to San Jose. Without it, I think the price would be so high that it would require "stupid money" to make it happen in SJ.

Hmmmmm....

...if I were Peter Magowan...

...would I regard this as a form of blackmail and howl to the league? Could I get votes to block this?

Would I say "let them move to Fremont and suffer the consequences"? The last 20 years of stadium-building leaves me a lot of evidence that says dependency on a "car culture" for attendance maximization is at best an iffy prospect.

Do I have any other options? The inference made from the article is that this plan potentially forces "me" to sell "my" territorial rights at a discount... will I really lose 60% of "my" fan base to a team named San Jose and located in Fremont?

Well, back to being Paul, if this article is even just mostly true, it certainly appeals to my inner drama queen. Just note that there are far more questions than answers, no matter what happens.

i just find it hard to understand how a responsible owner would want to put a baseball stadium in Fremont (which lacks the density and infrastructure that MLB looks for in a stadium site). Fremont is about 20-25 minutes North of San Jose without the terrible traffic that plagues the I-880 corridor, and is probably about 30-35 minutes south of Oakland as well.

this location is not convenient for anyone, and when traffic gets bad every night, the prospect of putting a stadium right in the middle of a terrible commute seems like a silly idea.

Traffic is already a disaster in the area and due to its location, the character of stadium visitors would likely resemble football fans at an out-of-city parking lot, rather than baseball fans at Fenway or SBC. So, lacking the infrastructure or location in Fremont, fans would probably have to pile into cars and drive (a significant distance) to Fremont.

The fremont site is devoid of the benefits that EVERY single Portland-area site possess, and I don't believe conform with MLB's recipe for financial prosperity. Fremont is not an urban, dense, vibrant area and does not exhibit the characteristics that MLB is looking for in a site. ANY of Portland's sites, even including Lents, would be much better than this meek compromise.

in the end, while fremont may seem an easy solution (by virtue of lots of land), i don't think a responsible owner or MLB would really want this site to be chosen.

BART is coming to South Fremont by hook or crook (probably by crook judging from South Bay politics). From there, it's a simple 5 minute shuttle ride to Pacific Commons.

The traffic problem varies in severity depending on which way you're going. My commute from downtown San Jose to Fremont runs about 15 minutes in the morning, 20-25 minutes in the afternoon coming back. In the afternoons SB-880 is not much of a problem and will only get better when the widening project is done in 2008. NB-880 will be bad, but that's actually part of the strategy - Fremont's trying to capture revenue that normally passes by on the commute home. Nearly 100,000 people commute into Silicon Valley from the East Bay and beyond everyday, so it's got decent market potential. Plus there's the prospect of additional rail service from either Caltrain or Amtrak immediately to the west of Pacific Commons.

As much as MLB encourages "downtown" ballpark developments, the economic impacts are generally overblown. Even in Fremont, it will simply mean tax revenues that normally would go to other surrounding cities will stay in town. Fremont is almost devoid of entertainment options, so this makes sense for them.

There's also the developer's angle. By pursuing an aggressive development strategy (3000+ units), Wolff/Fisher could benefit two ways: by taking proceeds after the ballpark is paid off from the sale/rent of housing, and by deducting some portion of debt service from the revenue sharing contribution.

Then again, I wouldn't discount the San Jose "gauntlet" that could be thrown down. It's a bit ruthless, but if Wolff tried it and it worked, there'd be an instant call for Wolff to be canonized.