It's understandable to brush them aside because San Jose clashes with our hopes of getting a team, but San Jose/Santa Clara county is legit. And if you think it's just a suburb of San Francisco, you've never been there.

I've never been there, and I never thought it was just a suburb of San Francisco. I'm sort of a geography/demographics geek and have read articles and factoids about San Jose and Santa Clara County many times.

The computer industry crash is affecting SF more than the valley itself. most of the dot-bombs were in san francisco. the larger, cisco type companies are in the valley. you find more infrastructure and network-level stuff in the sj/mountain view area.

At present i actually LIVE in san jose, unfortunately. Believe me, this is not a town of people who go out and entertain themselves. At midnight it's as quiet as a town of 100k. For some reason not much has sprung up, probably because when it does nobody goes there and that's that. Lots of millionaires does not a good baseball city make. SJ/SC is far less legitimate than Tampa Bay/St Pete was in the late 80's. Schotman is FROM Santa clara and that is the source of these fiendish desire. There is no mass transit connecting the rest of the bay with SJ/SC except for the 1.5 hour caltrain ride down the peninsula. A's fans in Oakland would have to take the WORST COMMUTE IN THE BAY each night to get to SJ for a game. in their cars.

it really isn't as good idea as it sounds if you are here. building a park in FREMONT seems more likely.

Thanks for your perspective, last-man. Very insightful!

I do think that some sort of Fremont location is the best option -- even over some of the new talk about a downtown Oakland ballpark at Laney College. In Fremont they'd be in a happy medium of closer to the big/rich/growing South Bay area, a bit closer and more convenient to the VERY growing far East Bay areas, yet they're still in Alameda County (and not infringing on the Giants' Santa Clara "claims" right or wrong) and relatively close to their traditional Oakland home.

Next question last-man:

Everything I've seen over the past 30 years is that the A's, no matter how good they've been and/or how well supported they've been (which, I might add, can be argued as "lackluster" - especially considering just how good they've been for much of the time), it always seems that they are second fiddle to the Giants. Kind of "little brother" with an inferiority complex type of situation - that appears to me has also been the case often when the G's have stunk and the A's were good.

What would you say to that?

Also, my contention is that it isn't healthy for a franchise and the league as a whole to have any of their teams be second fiddle to any team nearby. The only time that is understandable and "acceptable" is when the market is large enough to support both teams relatively well even if one is considered "lesser" than the other (an example is the Dodgers and the Angels...the Angels are kind of a little brother but they've still been supported pretty well). I think that it would be better for a team in a second fiddle situation (if they aren't as well supported as they should be like the A's often haven't been) should be "given" a market where they can shake that problem. I don't think anybody would suggest that the A's, if they came to PDX, for example, wouldn't be TOP DOG if they had a market to call their own.

What do you think about that?

_______________________
Pokey (aka: Tim Marttala)
Director of Operations
Oregon Baseball Campaign

I don't know about that, Pokey.

In a market large enough, with a dedicated fan base, having more than one team spurs interest.

Last year's World Series might not have been much fun for the rest of you guys out there in The World Beyond New York (as our cable news has it) , but it was fantastic here in the City. And it created many new baseball fans.

When the Dodgers and the Giants went west, the Yankees' attendence slumped. Having the Mets in town helps keep baseball interest at a peak (though a proper Yank fan would never admit it). Sometimes you need a "little brother." And the Met fans really need the Yankees, even though they always have and always will play second fiddle to the boys in the Bronx.

Having been raised in Milwaukee and having spent a great deal of time in Chicago, I don't think that the Cubs and Sox have really hurt each other (even though the Sox have threatened to move about a dozen times). The question becomes: does the Bay Area have enough of a fan base to support both teams? I would tend to think so, but I'm not completely sure.

[This message was edited by New Yorker on MAR-17-01 at 10:18 AM.]

Your last paragraph, NY'er, is what I meant to convey.

NY, Chicago and LA, like 'em or not, HAVE the fan base for two teams and, because of that, even though one of each area's teams has traditionally been lesser performing or lesser supported, their GENERAL level of support and success hasn't been hindered. In effect, it's OK and completely natural and understandable that one team might be the little brother to another team in a market of that caliber, just as long as the "little brother" franchise is still viable and well supported (which ALL of those little brother teams have been in those large markets).

Because it is natural and understandable for the big/little brother situation to exist in those markets, it is too is the Bay Area. Where the problem comes in is that the A's have NEVER been as viable a little-brother team as the little brother teams in the largest markets. The A's support has always been less than spectacular and probably less than it should have been, especially when their success has often been BETTER than the big brother Giants.

It's really a unique brother relationship in the Bay Area, and I think that it revolves completely around the likelihood that the Bay Area might not be quite large enough for the A's to exist as a viable team that draws the support necessary to thrive and the support they DESERVE given their success over the Giants'.

I am concerned for the A's that the situation would continue even in the South Bay, although probably not as obviously. Yes, their attendance might go up a bit if they get in a better ballpark, and yes, their revenue will DEFINETELY go up, but won't they STILL be the little brother in that area even if all that improvement makes them even more superior to the Giants on the field? I think it probably will and I don't think that is a good thing. But, that's just my opinion...and I admit it really has nothing to do with how good they are or will remain if they stay in the Bay Area - they probably will remain a good team for a very long time. I just don't think they will EVER get the kind of support they deserve in that market because of their little brother stigma.

_______________________
Pokey (aka: Tim Marttala)
Director of Operations
Oregon Baseball Campaign

The A's might be good on the field but they are the sorriest team in MLB. There owner who moved them Charlie O. Finley was a very stupid man. People here in KC were glad when he moved the team just so they could get rid of him. They were also glad he didn't get control of a stadium like Royals Stadium hate to say what he would have done to it.

Besides the A's should have moved back in the late 70's to Denver when Marvin Davis tried to buy the team. Finley and MLB were being real stupid and that was when the A's drew 600 to 1000 people to some games.

Personally I think if Portland gets a team it will be the A's.

Portland Athletics in 2003!

OK, returning to this thread.

First of all, the Santa Clara stadium bid has been made public, and it's a joke. They want the city to pay for nearly $200 million by the time the deal ends. Yeah, right. THERE IS NO WAY. The mayor and half the city council of SC don't want a team.

San Jose really is a giant suburb of itself, or as I like to joke, Campbell. It in no way resembles a thriving urban city.
Territorial Rigths aren't and never will be the issue here. The problem is that no public govt. in the south bay is going to build the A's a ballpark. The best way to tap into the south bay/silicon valley market really is to build in Fremont, as they would keep BART, keep the Oakland fanbase, and be at a convenient location as far as highways, etc are concerned.

But seriously folks, not gonna happen. This team is being sold RIGHT NOW to somebody. I wouldn't be surprised if the deal is announced 3 days after the A's season ends. Portland could have them move into PGE Park for two years. They would sell out every game and that would average out to nearly 2 million fans, a little less than they will draw in Oakland this year, but not bad.