quote: Selig says Giants' territorial rights must be honored
ESPN.com news services
Thursday, February 8
SAN FRANCISCO – A proposal to bring the Oakland Athletics to Santa Clara drew attention – and ire from the San Francisco Giants – during baseball commissioner Bud Selig's visit to the region Thursday.
Giants owner Peter Magowan says Santa Clara County is his team's territory. A 40-acre parcel there reportedly has been proposed as a new home for the A's.
Selling said teams' territorial rights must be honored.
"Baseball has territories that have been respected and built up because of years of discussion," he said. "We have to respect them."
According to a report in the San Jose Mercury News on Thursday, the city has not yet formally approached the A's about the plan, proposed by a group interested in inviting the team to move to Santa Clara.
Steve Schott, who owns the A's with partner Ken Hoffmann, said the A's would not consider a move without the blessing of Selig.
"He's the commissioner. His position is that those territory rights are the Giants', so basically, until those rights change, those rights are the Giants' and they're not ours," he said.
So that's one less competitor to worry about....
Here is a potential AL franchise for you, though I would rather see them stay where they are (and if it is to be the AL, the Devil Rays are to my mind a better team to relocate).
Thoughts?
Posts: 1025 | Location: New York City | Registered: February 05, 2001
The distance between Santa Clara and San Francisco is greater than the distance between Washington DC and Baltimore. If Selig ultimately prevents the A's from moving there, the Orioles would probably be able to prevent a team from moving to D.C.
On the other hand, if Selig let's a team move to D.C., there isn't much he could do to stop the A's from moving there.
CHARLOTTE-NEXT HOME OF MLB
Posts: 59 | Location: CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA, USA | Registered: February 05, 2001
The reason that the A's can't move to the San Jose area is because the Giants don't want them to and nothing will change their minds. There is speculation in the Bay Area that the Giants are trying to force the A's out. Any team can waive the territorial rights, but it usually involves mass amounts of cash.
I see two differences between this and Washington, D.C.:
1) The Orioles were given a waiver of the Senators' territorial rights in 1953, allowing them to move from St. Louis, so there is a PR angle that Angelos will have to face.
2) Baseball can't afford to lose its antitrust exemption. Were I in charge of the DC movement, I would get Congress involved. What better way to placate them than to return a team to Washington?
Now, I'm not sure that the force/keep-other-teams-out is a wise move. As the Commish has noted, local rivalries really help boost sales. Frankly, the best thing that could happen to Angelos would be another AL team to provide that spark.
Remember, the years in between the move of the Dodgers/Giants and the expansion Mets were some of the worst in Yankee history in terms of attendance. The Yanks had originally fought an expansion franchise, but are now very glad that they didn't.
Posts: 1025 | Location: New York City | Registered: February 05, 2001
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A proposal to bring the Oakland Athletics to Santa Clara drew attention and ire from the San Francisco Giants during baseball commissioner Bud Selig's visit to the region Thursday.
Giants owner Peter Magowan says Santa Clara County is his team's territory A 40-acre parcel there reportedly has been proposed as a new home for the A's.
Selling (sic) said teams' territorial rights must be honored.
"Baseball has territories that have been respected and built up because of years of discussion," he said. "We have to respect them."
According to a report in the San Jose Mercury News on Thursday, the city has not yet formally approached the A's about the plan, proposed by a group interested in inviting the team to move to Santa Clara.
Steve Schott, who owns the A's with partner Ken Hoffmann, said the A's would not consider a move without the blessing of Selig.
"He's the commissioner His position is that those territory rights are the Giants', so basically, until those rights change, those rights are the Giants' and they're not ours," he said.
Selig gave the keynote address Thursday at the annual Fox Sports Net luncheon for the San Francisco Bay Area's baseball teams.
At issue was economic disparity, with the revenue-producing Giants and the lesser Athletics as a backdrop.
The Giants have their new ballpark, the bayside Pacific Bell Park, which helped generate $160 million in revenues in its first season.
The A's, who share Network Associates Coliseum with the Oakland Raiders, had about $65 million in revenues, ranking them near the bottom of the major leagues.
The two teams mirror the concerns that baseball is too divided between the haves and the have-nots.
Magowan said there has been talk among owners about contraction involving two teams as a way to address the problem Such a plan could emerge within the year, he suggested.
He would not names the teams being discussed.
"You would think it would be a Montreal or Minnesota because their problems are the best known," Magowan said.
Why, yes we would. Wonder what else he knows about. Are other teams (besides the A's) looking to relocate? My money's on the Devil Rays.
quote: Selig said contraction was just one of the proposals being looked at.
"It is something we have talked about. We have proposals about it. We haven't really discussed it in any great length," he said.
I still don't think this is a serious option. With all the cities angling for franchises, why would they contract? This means we need to keep it up, all....
quote: However, he said, some sort of resolution must be found.
"Given the economic situation and the disparity among teams, you have to be able to provide revenue to the teams to be successful," he said.
Selig also addressed the contract situation with the players' association, suggesting owners will attempt to prevent negotiations from becoming as public as they have been in the past. The collective bargaining agreement expires Oct 31.
"I said in January in Phoenix, one of the things we've always done badly is the negotiations Its been a circus," he said. "From now on, everything is going to be done quietly. We're mindful of the mistakes of the past."
As for the A's, Selig suggested a new ballpark might help.
"There are only so many ballparks left that were built in the 1950s and 60s," he said. "You have to level the playing field to end the disparity."
I'm with Bud. If I had my way, I would try to save all the older parks (including Fenway), make sure that all parks from the 50s and 60s (actually, if you ask me the Dark Ages didn't really end until the late 80s) were bulldozed, and restore all stadiums that had been "improved" during that time (read that: Yankee).
So what do you guys think about this longer article?
Posts: 1025 | Location: New York City | Registered: February 05, 2001
I think eventually the A's will move from the bay area since they will not get a new park but i see that 3-5 years away however the expos will move next year almost certainly and the twins will not be far behind. the expos are losing tens of millions of dollars both this year and last and the owner is not loaded. I am not as familiar with the Rays problems other than the worst park in MLB(ARENA BASEBALL). Without a new park the rays are gone in 5 years or so, hard to say about the padres that will have to work through the courts.
Posts: 2235 | Location: vancouver, wa | Registered: January 03, 2001
I'm finding it hard to belive that the Devil Rays will get a new stadium. Tropicana Field is exactly eleven years old!
Their misfortune to have built a ballpark at exactly the wrong moment. They could not have anticipated the trend that just a few years later would turn violently against domes. Of course, MLB did tell them not to build it.
A bit like the White Sox (who threatened to move to Tampa if Chicago didn't build them a new home). They opened New Comiskey Park in 1991. In 1992, the Orioles opened Camden Yards and changed the way we view ballparks. Now new Comiskey is considered the last of a long string of bad ballparks, impersonal and way too big. I've been to a game there, it's not too bad, but it's no Oriole Park.
It is true that this is a slow process sometimes. But remember that historically, relocating a team has been done quickly. You can see this in the history of the last two major league teams in my own hometown, Milwaukee.
On March 13, 1953, Braves owner Lou Perini announced his intention to petition the National League for permission to relocate to Milwaukee, the home of their AAA franchise (traditionally very attractive to clubs- remember this if the Padres' stadium does fall through). Five days later, the NL voted unamimously to allow him to do it. The Braves had their first exhibition game in Milwaukee on April 10, opened on the road on April 13, and had their first home opener as the Milwaukee Braves on April 14. One month from start to finish, from thought to deed.
The Brewers came even more quickly. After a very disappointing inaugural season in Seattle, the Pilots were sent into bankruptcy by a federal court. That meant that an outside interest could buy the team and move it. Bud Selig got word from the court at 10:15pm on March 31, 1970. The home opener was April 7 (this is how the Brewers ended up with their blue and gold colors- there was no time to make anything more than cosmetic changes to the uniforms).
Now, after almost thirty years without a move, we forget. We see the stadium fights drag on and on, we watch the White Sox and the Giants and the Twins and the Expos and the Brewers all threaten to leave town, we watch the slow progress of the construction crews and we forget that when relocation comes, it can come very very quickly.
Portland should start preparing now. If there is no deal for a major league stadium, no team will relocate. If one is in the works, you could find a team sooner than you realize. The talking takes an awfully long time. But once a team has decided to move, they want to get out of town immediately.
Posts: 1025 | Location: New York City | Registered: February 05, 2001
Okay, okay. Last time. I found an even longer version of the article (shoulda gone here the first time- www.mlb.com).
quote:Selig addresses Oakland stadium situation A's lag far behind cross-bay rivals in revenue
By Paul C. Smith 2/9/2001 5:30 pm ET
In a striking manner, the two teams that play in the San Francisco Bay area reflect one of the most important issues facing Major League Baseball today: economic disparity.
While the San Francisco Giants and the Oakland A's are very competitive on the field, off the field the similarities end.
On the west side of the bay, the Giants built state-of-the-art Pacific Bell Park, moved in last season and generated $160 million in revenue. They have economically solidified their future.
On the east side of the bay, the A's share Network Associates Coliseum with the NFL's Oakland Raiders and had $65 million in revenue last season. That number was fifth-lowest in baseball. Consequently, the long-term future of the A's in Oakland hinges on their ability to move into a new ballpark which will generate enough revenue streams to make them adequately profitable.
The A's stadium situation was the main topic of discussion this week when MLB Commissioner Bud Selig visited the Bay Area. On Thursday, he gave the keynote address at the annual Fox Sports Net luncheon.
Specifically, Selig touched on reports that officials from Santa Clara sent a letter to A's owners Steve Schott and Ken Hoffman this week giving the A's 60 days to decide if they are interested in 40 acres off the Great American Parkway, three miles south of the Alameda County line.
But Selig essentially ended the speculation when he reminded the gathering that Santa Clara County, about 35 minutes southeast of San Francisco, is part of the Giants' marketing territory.
"Baseball has territories, and we have to be very respectful of those territories," Selig said, according to the San Jose Mercury News. "They have been brought about by years of discussions. But given the economics of our game, it's my responsibility to make sure all our clubs are competitive, that all our clubs have a chance to generate the kind of revenues they need to be successful."
The A's don't intend to proceed with the Santa Clara proposal without MLB's approval.
But, according to the Oakland Tribune, one member of the Santa Clara booster club trying to lure the A's said Selig's statement may not be the end.
"Major League Baseball grants territorial rights, and it can take them away," said Santa Clara County Assessor Larry Stone, president of the Santa Clara Stadium Association. "I would expect Bud Selig to say exactly what he said today... I'm not discouraged."
Santa Clara County as a part of the Giants' marketing area, despite its close proximity to San Fancisco and Oakland, is a result of the Giants' 1992 attempt to have a ballpark built with public money. That vote failed, but Giants Managing General Partner Peter Magowan is holding tightly to his team's rights.
"The A's need a ballpark, but just don't put it in the Giants' territory," Magowan told the Mercury News. "Put it in the A's territory. Santa Clara County is a big part of the Giants' fan base."
The A's would need approval from three-fourths of Major League owners to reverse the Giants' territorial rights.
"If three-fourths of the clubs think we should give up those rights, there's nothing we can do about it," Magowan told the Tribune. "But I don't think that's going to happen."
So, where do the A's go from here?
Selig made it quite clear on his visit to the Bay Area that he believes the A's have to have a new ballpark at some point.
"What has been wrong with certain ballparks, whether it was Baltimore or Atlanta or many other places, is that they don't generate the kinds of revenue streams that a club needs to be competitive," Selig told the Tribune. "The fact is that there are a lot of ballparks built in the '50s and '60s like that.
"But now, Cincinnati is building a new ballpark. Pittsburgh is building a new ballpark. Milwaukee is building a new ballpark. So, therefore, if you want your team to be competitive -- to be able to keep players and to be able to do the things that the Giants, for instance, are doing so remarkably well -- you have to level the playing field."
The issue of economic disparity will be at the forefront when a new collective bargaining agreement is negotiated after this season, but Selig underscored the need for each team to take responsibility for its own situations under the new agreement.
"Every franchise has to take care of itself," Selig said in the Tribune. "How much can baseball do to help? We can change the system and do the things we should do but, frankly, the clubs themselves are in no economic condition to be helping each other at this point. Therefore, all the teams that have had new stadiums built and done what they've done. They've done it because everybody has to take care of themselves."
This is very interesting. I think his hard line about moving franchises is getting even harder- if the teams can't get the stadiums built, they should move.
We might even see a mass-migration before the 2002 or 2003 season this way....
Posts: 1025 | Location: New York City | Registered: February 05, 2001
