THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

The hold up is that the Giants want the entire Bay Area to themselves, so they hope playing hardball will force MLB to move (or, less likely, contract) the team to another market entirely.

Seems really unlikely to work though if for no other reason than other teams are probably tired of the $30 million Oakland gets through revenue sharing, and a move to San Jose would almost certainly eliminate the need for that.

MLB doesn’t have to cede Oakland’s territory even without the A’s there.

Where does it say that if Oakland leaves (to say Wyoming), that Oakland’s territory (and its value) becomes the spoils of the Giants?

If the A’s leave the area entirely, “territorial rights” become meaningless. There would be no ceding of anything. The entire Bay would “belong” to the Giants not via some splitting of the territory, but by the simple practical fact that if you want to attend baseball games or watch them on local TV, you have to watch the Giants.

If there’s a territory swap, it’s probably not Oakland (or more properly, Alameda County) being swapped.  It’s probably a swap of Santa Clara County (where San Jose is) and Contra Costa County (the county to the immediate north of Alameda County).

In fact, the Giants have just last month opened a Giants Dugout Store in Walnut Creek, in Contra Costa County.  The A’s have not complained one peep about this violation of their current territory, so I’m guessing a trade of Contra Costa for Santa Clara counties is already a fait accomplit.

Jason/3: if some OTHER team wanted to enter Oakland, would they then require permission from the Giants?  That’s what I meant, that MLB should maintain the territory, even without the A’s there.

There’s NO reaosn that the Giants get the spoils.

I hope the A’s do move to San Jose. That would cut down my travel time by 90%.

I think the real issue here with being hard-nosed about the San Jose area is that the Giants built their new stadium with very little public funding under the expectation that they would have their market for a longer period of time to pay off the stadium investment.

@Millsy - the Giants got tons of corporate welfare to build their stadium: reduced price land, transit extensions, tax cuts, etc. 

Santa Clara County is not Giants territory.  The Santa Clara County line is 30+ miles from AT&T Park, and the bulk of its population is 50+ miles away.  San Francisco isn’t counted in the Sharks’ territory for revenue sharing purposes and the Sacramento Kings have no claim on Oakland.

There’s a reason people wear those split caps with the Giants on one side and the A’s on the other. They like whoever’s good.

A few observations on the demographics of region:

Santa Clara County is the most populated county in the Bay Area and is one of the richest counties in the entire US, with a median income >$80k.

Alameda county (Oakland) is more working class and is more racially diverse. Having lived there for a while, my sense is there is a lot more regional pride and team pride—Raiders and A’s fans are rabid.
It’s really really hard to imagine A’s fans becoming Giants fans. There’s presently a mild disdain for the fruity, corporate, bandwagony team across the Bay.

There is also a very strong demographic connection between SF and Santa Clara county. A lot of people who work in the valley live in SF; a lot of people have worked in both the valley and SF; a lot of people who live in the valley used to live in SF; it is easier to get to the valley via public transport from SF than Oakland; people in Silicon valley consider SF “the city” and spend time and money there outside of sporting events - not so with Oakland.

So, it’s hard to imagine the A’s prying away the SC fanbase from the Giants irrespective of the machinations of MLB. The general consensus on the proposed A’s move to Fremont (the city in Alameda county closest to Silicon Valley) was that it wouldn’t garner the team any new fans.

Finally, it’s worth noting that Oakland is now coming to its own. The median income has grown 20% since 2000 and there are a lot more tech companies, families and artists moving to the region, fleeing the high prices of SF and SC county. I think if the A’s can hold on for a few more years, put in some better public transport from Contra Costa country (to the East), make a more family-friendly environment, and perhaps even build a down town ballpark, they can ride the demographic wave to prosperity.

Personally, I think it would be a real shame to move the A’s from Oakland.

@Hawerchuck,

I didn’t say they received no funding or breaks, but as a percentage of the total cost, their investment was rather high compared to other stadium deals.  They likely made this investment under an assumption that they would have territorial rights of a given nature (including the populated Santa Clara county and western side of the bay area).  I imagine this makes them a bit more hard-nosed about the issue, no?

As mettle highlights above, a move creates a situation in which the Giants’ territory (where people travel from to get to the game in my definition) will change a good bit.  That’s the issue here.

Additionally, transportation improvements may or may not benefit only the Giants.  They likely have other benefits for the city and its residents.  But this is beside the point of making an investment under certain assumptions that may or may not have been supported by MLB at the time.

http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/national/pacbel.htm

“Cost: $357 million
Private financing: $170 million loan from Chase Manhattan Bank, $70 million from the sale of charter seat licenses, $102 million from the sale of naming rights, sponsorships and other sources, and $15 million in tax increment financing by the city’s redevelopment agency.”

“Financing: The ballpark is the first privately funded ballpark built for Major League Baseball since Dodger Stadium opened in 1962. No new taxes and no money from San Francisco’s general fund were used to build the ballpark. The Giants lease the land on which the ballpark sits from the Port of San Francisco at a fair market value”

You had the same situation with the Orioles and Nationals, with a lot of $$ coming in from the DC and Northern VA areas.  If the A’s move, there will likely be some required compensation for that lost market, whether or not it is within the bounds of the drawn territorial rights.

http://mlb.sbnation.com/2012/1/11/2697389/a-proposal-to-break-the-territorial-rights-logjam-between-the-as-and

So, Oakland did give up the SJ territory to SF for nothing, on the assumption the Giants were going to move there. 

They didn’t move there, so you would think this is like an option: it’s expired if not executed (i.e., Giants moving to SJ).

Instead, Giants maintain those rights, and argue that their ownership of those rights is what allows them to stay in business.

Political-speak naturally.

Anyway, I liked the proposal of the commenter: let the Giants move to SJ, and let the A’s move to SF.  (If the Giants like SJ so much.)

Really, it seems obscene that the Giants would not return the magnanimous act that the A’s granted them… especially since they didn’t DIRECTLY use SJ.

Hard to believe the small-market A’s are the ones who are helping out its rivals

this is all back in the news again.  got a question:  This whole issue of territorial “rights” is b.s., right?

My reading is that the Giants are making a stink in the same manner Angelos made a stink and got compensated when the Expos moved to Washington. The Giants just see an opportunity to cash in.

It’s rather bizarre to claim that an area 15 miles from your stadium is not your “territory,” but some other place 50 miles away IS ABSOLUTELY your territory.

If anything, the whole bay area belongs to both teams and neither one has any grounds to object to another moving within its own market. That is, they have no “rights” to specific sites in their market.  Unless of course its in a contract somewhere, which they probably would have said if it were the case.

There are three issues:

1. Oak had “territory” rights, which they waived to allow the Giants to move to SJ.  They didn’t.  According to a recent report, the did NOT give those rights to Giants, but rather had an “option” that the Giants could have exercised (by moving there), and didn’t.  Options unexercised are worthless.  So, there was no actual transfer of rights. 

Or so the report goes.

2. Even if Giants do have “ownership” to San Jose, just do a land swap.  Is it so hard?

3. When the Islanders were stationed in NY, they paid a rights fee to the Rangers I believe.  When the Devils/Scouts relocated to NJ, I believe they paid BOTH the Rangers and Islanders.

Clearly, once someone moves into the territory, BOTH should have full rights after being “vested” there.

So, the Orioles/Nats now own equally their territories.  As should the Giants/A’s.

It’s a wonder this is not actually the case (if it isn’t).

Somehow, the MLB and MLBPA can agree on more contentious issues than two owners sitting side-by-side.  It’s ridiculous.

I get it, I guess. It just sounds like all this bickering is a prelude to someone from MLB or Oakland/San Jose finally saying to the Giants, “Okay, so how much do money you want?”

Then we’re no longer arguing about right and wrong, but about price, which is easier to negotiate.

Cubs/Redsox, Giants/A’s… everyone is looking out for #1.