Thus, and with the greatest of apology to all of those who have expended time and energy on behalf of the A’s, and the same apology to those who have expended time and energy in a sincere and polite expression of disagreement with our desire to relocate in the City of Fremont, I have concluded that further consideration of the A’s relocating to Fremont must cease.
And with that statement in a letter to Fremont city officials, Oakland A’s owner Lew Wolff officially stuck a fork in the two-year-plus saga of his team’s attempted move to the small city of Fremont, which had foundered on opposition by local landholders and protests by the local citizenry. As of Saturday, Wolff was still holding out hope for a site near the planned Warm Springs BART station, but given that he didn’t have land or funding identified there, it was no surprise when he declared today that the Fremont move was deader than the U.S. auto industry.
As was probably inevitable, the letter — and an accompanying statement by Wolff that he remains focused on “Northern California” — set off a round of speculation about where the A’s stadium hunt might turn next, with San Jose, Sacramento, and some lady in Morgan Hill all throwing their hats in the ring. Each has problems, however, which is how Wolff got focused on Fremont in the first place: Sacramento is relatively small and isolated from much of the Bay Area, while San Jose has a long tradition of opposing public stadium funding and would almost certainly require a substantial payoff to the Giants for their territorial rights.
The likeliest scenario seems that the A’s stay put in Oakland for the time being — and perhaps beyond. It’s centrally located, there are no territorial snags, and several sites in Oakland are available that would be less likely to prompt community outrage than in Fremont (though funding would still be a contentious issue); for that matter, if the Raiders end up moving out of town in the next few years, a Kauffmanesque renovation of the Coliseum could be a possibility. It’s no doubt not Wolff’s #1 choice — he still salivates over getting closer to the South Bay and its silicon riches — but it could end up being the best choice he has left.
Will Las Vegas or Portland ever enter into the discussion even though Northern CA is a supposed priority? (I think Portland would at least have a chance at supporting a club)
Maybe someone would take some inspiration from the concepts behind the hotels New York, New York and Bellagio and make a reproduction of the Metrodome.
As a former 10-year resident, I can attest to the strong support on the ground in the Rose City for a MLB franchise. Heck, the M's and Giants garner strong TV/radio #'s despite the distance to SF and the NW rivalry with Seattle - from basketball to coffee to herbs. The only stumbling block IMO would be the precarious nature of the Ms in Seattle these days and MLB questioning whether a Portland franchise would further deplete the Ms value.
Portland is a lovely city, but it's the 25th largest U.S. media market (behind Orlando and Indianapolis), has no extended area to draw from until you start cannibalizing Seattle's market, and when we went through all this last time with the Expos, had no real idea how to pay for a stadium. And the state is flat broke. Compared to that, Sacramento starts to look real good.
As for Las Vegas: #33 in media market, surrounded by desert, no stadium, and brings stench of gambling.
How bad would Sacremento be? Its not that far of a move, Still has some towns around to draw from, including the 18 current Oakland residents who still care about the team (not including the 12 BP staffers)
What about Austin/San Antonio?
Put the stadium near San Marcos and it's maybe a 30 minute drive from either city. That whole area must have over 3 million people.
Baseball is bigger than basketball in Texas. It just doesn't make sense for the state to have 3 NBA teams and only 2 MLB teams. Of course football is biggest of all, and it still has more NBA teams than NFL teams.
Basketball is cheaper than Baseball. Not to attend, but to own a team. Basketball has historically penetrated smaller markets than Football (Green Bay being the exception which proves the rule). You see Basketball teams in Sacramento, Oklahoma City, Orlando, Charlotte, Memphis, and Utah. Places that would never support Football (with 3 football teams in Florida already, Orlando is o-u-t out.)
San Antonio currently hosts a AA team which does fairly poorly attendance-wise, partially due to inefficient marketing, partially because its AA, and partially due to a relatively inconvenient location of its stadium.
San Antonio is also an interesting town from another aspect. Due to its encompassing of 5 current or former military bases plus the adjacency of Camp Burris training complex makes San Antonio's population largely transitory. In other words, many of its citizens are servicemen who eventually get transferred elsewhere. On the other side, San Antonio is also a place where many servicemen retire to, with its warm climate and accommodating atmosphere. Also, with its large Mexican population, major league baseball would be very popular, but might lack funds.
On the other side of the equation is Austin. Austin is home to the Round Rock Express, a AAA franchise which is run by one of Nolan Ryan's sons. Their attendance is very high, and Austin (of which Round Rock is a wealthy suburb) has alot of money, if not a lot of people. If only Austin were just south of San Antonio instead of the other way around. San Antonio Residents do go to Austin on occasion (usually to go to the bars on Sixth street for really good music) and Austin Residents have been known to go to San Antonio (for the same reason most other people travel there, the Riverwalk, Sea World, and the Alamo). I think that putting a stadium in either San Marcos or New Braunfels (the two largest "towns" in between Austin and San Antonio) would be a mistake. Most of the baseball fans in Austin live on the north side, and wouldn't be crazy about traveling 45 min south of town on a regular basis (especially with the traffic on I-35), and Many of the baseball fans in San Antonio wouldn't want to drive 45 min north either.
A unique solution might be in a little town called Lulling. Luling sits about 60 miles east of San Antonio along I-10 (towards Houston) and about 45 min south of Austin, a straight drive down Highway 183.
On the other hand, a Stadium in Austin itself could draw from both San Antonio and College Station, along with the Hill Country, and even Waco.
A final option might be something down in MacAllen or Brownsville (in a few years) The growth of the Rio Grande Valley has been enormous, even though there isn't a huge amount of money behind it. It would be the closest thing to playing in Mexico w/o actually crossing the border.
As an East Bay resident & A's fan, I would attend many more games every year if the stadium was a little more enjoyable to watch baseball. I'd much rather go to PacBell (or whatever) with friends to enjoy a day of baseball even though I'd rather be watching the A's.
San Jose is the logical destination, Giants be damned...this territorial issue must be resolved. It resembles gang turf war battles.
San Antonio is intriguing as it provides an instant rivalry with the Rangers. Portland has shown that it would have difficulty supporting a MLB club since the Beavers attendance (their minor league team) has had too many ups and downs over the years (I think Neyer pointed this out many years ago).
Sacramento is an hour and a half from Oakland, not counting rush hour - it would get very few fans from the Bay Area. Anyway, it seems to me that any city would have the same economic problems, so why not put all their effort into staying put? The A's could easily fill a new stadium in Oakland, they just have to get it built without too much public funding (and thus renewing fears of a Raiders-like screw job). It's not that there aren't enough A's fans, it's that the Coliseum is an awful place to watch a game and the ownership hasn't done anything to improve the experience there.
As of the 2000 census, the Sacramento Metropolitan Statistical Area had a population of 1,796,857 (though a July 1, 2007 estimate placed the population at 2,091,120). That's only slightly smaller than Portland.
I'm sure Neil can tell you that for baseball, it's all about population. Even the 'holy grail' of San Jose has fewer people in the immediate area than Oakland does (even including all of San Mateo county, which is Giants fan central). Beyond that, the only 'better' options aren't really any good at all:
1. New Jersey (NY teams won't have it)
2. Mexico City (much higher altitude than even Coors)
3. Monterrey, Mexico (not a lot of money there)
The A's are best in Oakland, where BART is their lifeblood. Even Fremont was stupid, because so many A's fans come from Contra Costa County. Jack London Square makes the most sense, short of Alameda or Treasure Island if they are incorporated stops in the 'second bore' train tube under the bay.
Old Alameda Navy Air Station would've been a decent ballpark/development site if it wasn't a Superfund site. Not to mention being slated for a different developer.
24 comments have been left for this post.
Will Las Vegas or Portland ever enter into the discussion even though Northern CA is a supposed priority? (I think Portland would at least have a chance at supporting a club)
Rob Neyer has made the case for Portland more than once in the past.
Gambling concerns aside, I can't imagine watching or playing baseball in consistent triple-digit heat.
Maybe someone would take some inspiration from the concepts behind the hotels New York, New York and Bellagio and make a reproduction of the Metrodome.