Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: PostSports  |  Facebook  |  E-mail alerts: Redskins and Sports  |  RSS

Does Northern California Want the A's?

It's a legitimate question, particularly in the wake of this story from MLB.com, in which the mayor of San Jose, Chuck Reed, all but insists that the team would have to pay for its own ball park if it moved to the city.

Of course, that being said, that doesn't mean the Giants won't move to San Jose, one of the country's 20 largest cities. Reed specifically didn't rule out the city providing land and or infrastructure around any potential new ball park, investment that could make a move a lot more attractive for A's owner Lew Wolff, who admitted a personal preference for moving the team to San Jose during spring training.

The San Jose issue is a divisive one for Northern Californians, with the city firmly in the Giants' territory (as per MLB demographics) but still large enough to support the 32,000-seat, $500 million park that Wolff and the A's envision. If the city council supports allocating adjunct resources (land, infrastructure, etc.) and a subsequent referendum for building a park passes, San Jose could rapidly put itself in line to be the Athletics' new home.

The bigger question, of course, is where the A's would end up if San Jose doesn't work. The team's much ballyhooed move to Fremont fell apart earlier this year, and the team refuses to discuss other potential sites at the risk of alienating suitors or undermining bids.

That's what the team's future in Northern California almost feels like San Jose or bust, at least to me. We know that Las Vegas would do almost anything to land a professional sports team (including banning bets on the team's affiliated sports league in the city's casino sports book). We know that the A's have at least flirted with the idea of moving there in the past. We know that the Giants would probably be thrilled if they got as far away from Northern California as possible. Nevada works for that.

Naturally, none of those reasons mean that Oakland will be playing in Las Vegas anytime soon. For all we know, they could easily play out the final year of their lease at Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum next year and then enact each of the three one-year options the club holds on the venue after that. Maybe by that time they'll even have a future spot in Oakland lined up.

It just doesn't feel like they will, does it?

By Cameron Smith  |  May 14, 2009; 2:02 PM ET
Categories:  Athletics , Giants  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: For Yankees, a Different Concept of "Value"
Next: Talking Behind Their Back: Rays

Comments

They Athletics ought to move back to Philadelphia. :)

Posted by: writered21 | May 14, 2009 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Um, do you mean San Jose mayor Chuck Reed or San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom?

Regardless, San Jose is the place to move. More money in town, further from the Giants, and makes baseball easier to get to from South Bay. Probably the best place to move in the country.

Posted by: cbm92 | May 14, 2009 3:20 PM | Report abuse

I don't know California demographics, but if the As move south, doesn't concede Oakland and north of the Bay bridge to the Giants? Do the As have a loyal enough following so that fans will not switch allegiances after they are deserted?

Posted by: jca-CrystalCity | May 14, 2009 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Not sure how that would work, jca. San Jose isn't that far from Oakland. What I would wonder is where in San Jose they would put a ballpark. Also, SFO already has a MiLB affiliate in San Jose, in a little old WPA-era ballpark.

Posted by: natsfan1a1 | May 14, 2009 3:53 PM | Report abuse

hmm, the one piece says that they already have a site in mind. We need to get NJ denizen PattyinSJ on this one.

Posted by: natsfan1a1 | May 14, 2009 3:56 PM | Report abuse

True, San Jose is close to Oakland (40.2 miles according to Google) (and San Francisco 49.2 miles). For comparison, DC to Baltimore is 38.5 miles. And having lived both places, it's just as much of a pain to drive between any of them during rush hour. Also, mass transit is much better between Oakland and SF than between either and San Jose.

Posted by: cbm92 | May 14, 2009 4:20 PM | Report abuse

True that, cbm, having lived there myself. South Bay mass transit options have improved since I lived there, but traffic can definitely be a bear.

Posted by: natsfan1a1 | May 14, 2009 6:25 PM | Report abuse

I was just at the A's game last night. Wednesday 2 dollar plaza level tickets and 1 dollar hot dogs. They don't pull a good crowd cause the team isn't that good, Holliday is stinking the joint out. As it is now you can come from San Fran 20 minutes on the subway, which is nice if you prefer the AL teams, so they get that set. No way to get to San Jose from Frisco on public transit, and I don't see many people from Oakland making that hike...

Posted by: Dremit97 | May 14, 2009 6:40 PM | Report abuse

True, it seems like the transit options (at least from my own experience from some years ago) favor those going from south to north, who can drive to a BART station and park, for example. Maybe they're figuring on a potential BART extension to San Jose?

Posted by: natsfan1a1 | May 14, 2009 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Course, then you'd still need a way to get to the park from the station, depending on where the park would be.

Posted by: natsfan1a1 | May 14, 2009 7:14 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company