Main Sections:
Main Site
Discussion Forum
    All Topics
    New Messages
    Search
    Last Day
    Last Week
    Tree View
    Edit Profile
    Create Login
    Guidelines
    Help
Game Chat
Fund Raiser:
Order Merchandise!

Suggested Reading:
(click cover for info)

cover

A mediot on the lose...

OAFC BBS - All Topics: Archive: A mediot on the lose...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By diamond_lil on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 09:24 am:

this is what happens when a newspaper gives
writing space to an idiot just because his work
is cheap.

http://www.dailyreviewonline.com/Stories/0,1413,88~10984~2505650,00.html

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By jesse on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 09:34 am:

This guy is a complete ASS HOLE

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By diamond_lil on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 09:37 am:

The sad thing about this guy writing that kind of crap in the Oakland Tribune, is that he is doing it for personal reasons. He is trying to get a response from A's fans just to prove people read his s@#$ and respond to him.

While the EssEff paper and other Giant's controlled media promotes their team, the Oakland Tribune allows this kind of negative, pro-Giants propaganda run free and easy.

This guy DG used to be rotisserie baseball writer and is now a voice in the Oakland Tribune? What a bad joke.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By jesse on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 09:48 am:

the real truth is that Oakland will be an option long before the A's end up in Vegas. Second after them is SJ.
Portland probably could happen if teams are willing to switch divisions. Like maybe Rockies to AL West and the A's to the NL West because of the Mariners being so close to Portland and so many fans of theirs coming from that area.

But after reading the article in the Trib this morning about the possible legaility issues related to the 300MIL redevelopment plan on the waterfront and the Coliseum authority loosing money no matter how well the sales go for Raider PSL's next year, I cant help but to wonder if anyting can ever get done well in Oakland. Are the politicians too inept to make it work. Is San Jose going to get this team, because they have a better political structure in place? If the A's do get a stadium in Oakland, is it another political diasaster waiting to happen?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By deajay on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 10:18 am:

Yeh, I read that earlier ... and no, I do not read this jerk. Just had to see if I was right when I read the headline knowing it was him. I did shoot him a short email telling him he was confused and that he is the one who has got to go. I suggested maybe So. Ca. or New Mexico as destinations. Guess I should have suggested another country or an isolated island, period.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By diamond_lil on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 10:20 am:

jesse, Oakland isn't any different than other cities when it comes to wrong doing with political involvement in real estate deals etc...

San Jose has recently dealt with similar or even worse problems. Check out this little scandal:

http://www.timesleader.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/the_valley/9361949.htm

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By sactodavey on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 10:49 am:

just posted this on another topic about this article:

what i do not understand is why in the Hell would the tribune condone one of their writers publicly saying the A's need to move out of the city the same newspapar represents? this is total bullshit, this guy should be fired!!!! you would think the city newspapaer would be fighting for their pro teams rather then trying to boot them out the fregen door!!!!

i just do not get why the editors fot he tribe would allow this sf Giant propaganda to be written on a paper claiming to be the OAKLAND Tribune this is a joke!!!!!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By beanehead on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 11:14 am:

There has always been lots of debate about the viability of two baseball teams in the Bay Area. Although I am firmly in the camp that believes both the A's and Giants can thrive within 20 miles of each other, I do see why others don't share that belief. Ultimately, though, sending one team packing is the easy way out...it requires no creativity or thought.

I have less problem with the writer for his views than for his utter lack of writing skill. The piece reads like it was written for a second-grader. Where does the Trib find these guys? The Chron clearly has an SF bias, but at least they have professional writers.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By diamond_lil on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 12:14 pm:

beanehead, I can see why you have more problem with the quality of the writer than his views. You may like the A's, but you're primarily a "huge" Giants fan.

You're part of the fandom that would feel sorry to see the A's leave town, but at least you would have your team. The majority of the A's fans that post here at this site would never change their allegiance to the Giants. Of course we don't represent the casual fans that writer was making reference to...nor to fans that just enjoy going to games at the Coli when their own teams comes to town, like the Red Sox or Yankees...

However speaking strickly an Oakland A's fan, I'm actually thankful this writer ooozes ignorance.
At least his writing does less damage than the so called "professional writers" who are nothing more than public relation minions of the Giants organization.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By beanehead on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 01:25 pm:

Lil, I am not "primarily a "huge" Giants fan". Believe it or not, I love my A's as much as the Giants, if not more. So that's just an assumption on your part. I've never said I like the Giants more than the A's. However, I make no apology for liking the Giants as well.

"You're part of the fandom that would feel sorry to see the A's leave town, but at least you would have your team."

Well, gee, thanks for speaking for me and putting words in my mouth. I would like their principal owner to leave, though.

This is how much I like the A's: I post on this site and have never been to a Giants site. Yeah, I know, you probably wish I would leave here and join a Giants fan board.:)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By bigthree17 on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 01:42 pm:

Beanehead is just saying that he understands why someone would take this viewpoint (as myopic as it is), not that he agrees with it.

Just because my brother also likes the Giants doesn't mean his, or anyone else's, views should be discounted. Nor is it accurate to say he is "primarily" a huge Giants fan. If anything, he loves the A's more. He got the A's sponsorship money, not the Giants, remember?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By beanehead on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 01:46 pm:

And, BTW, I don't have really any problems with his views because they are totally unoriginal. Further, there is no proof or data to back up any of his assertions. It's all just ridiculous. I don't take the issue seriously (at least not the way he presents it).

I do have a problem with the writing. Is the writer that poorly skilled? Or is he speaking down to his intended audience (or those he assumes will read it)? Either way, Oakland isn't represented well.

So, I am in agreement with you partly. Yes, such blather will be ignored and isn't as damaging as writing by "professional writers". But it IS damaging in that such sub-standard reporting will be read by others and they will assume Oakland is populated by idiots.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By diamond_lil on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 01:48 pm:

i{Yeah, I know, you probably wish I would leave here and join a Giants fan board.:}

now who is making assumptions based on absolutely nothing...when did I ever made you feel unwelcomed here?

so even if you are not primarily a Giants fan, you would at least have one of your two teams at your backyard. That is not putting words in your mouth.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By diamond_lil on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 01:51 pm:

now that was a third grade response written by yours trully with a fever and tremendous sore throat...and i won't bother fixing it

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By beanehead on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 02:17 pm:

Lil, that's why I put a :) at the end of the sentence. Jokey, jokey.

It does seem you can be a bit sensitive when anyone else is here who doesn't share your point of view on occasion (WK77, soxxinny, trotnixon07, etc.). Especially Red Sox fans whom you've told to leave. So since you assumed I was mainly a Giants fan (and since you hate the Giants), I thought maybe you looked at me like a Sox fan. It's your right, you're the owner of this board. Just what it seems to me.

It would be accurate to say "at least you would have A team" (if the A's leave). It is not accurate to say "at least you would have YOUR team"...implying that I favored one over the other. So, yes, that would be putting words in my mouth.

Sorry you're not feeling well, hope you get better soon.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By diamond_lil on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 02:28 pm:

ok, i'm not really going to prolong this argument and you are free to have your opinions of me. However, I am not the owner of this board. I am the moderator and the posters I have asked to leave were trolls. Btw, those were not asked to leave because they would not have obliged.

I never asked wk77, soxxinny or trotnixon to leave but have responded to their posts with my strong opinions. This is a discussion forum.

I'm not going to drag this any further though...sorry if I touched a nerve you...again.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By beanehead on Monday, November 01, 2004 - 02:36 pm:

"I'm not going to drag this any further though...sorry if I touched a nerve you...again."

Likewise.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By whoknows77 on Thursday, November 04, 2004 - 01:14 pm:

While we certainly do subscribe to differing schools of thought, I definitely do agree with Lil from time to time (about more than just the A's being outrageously awesome!).

If the Bay Area isn't big enough for two teams, then there is only one option, contraction.

The two most likely destinations? Vegas and Portland? What a joke - Vegas is less than 1/4 the size of the Bay area and Portland is less than 1/3.

If 6 mil/2 = 3 mil isn't enough for one team, how would 1.8 or 1.3 cut it?

Oh, wait, forgot, high growth rates. Ok, lets work with that. Vegas had the highest growth rate in the country over the 90s, adding 600,000 people. At that rate, Vegas would reach 3 million in May of 2028.

Portland also had a strong growth rate, adding 400,000 people in the 90s. At that rate, Protland would reach 3 million slightly early, in October of 2027.

Except, if current growth rates continue across the board, by 2027, the Bay area will have roughly 8 million people ... since it also added 600,000 people in the 90s, the growth rate % was just much lower because we started much bigger.

So, by then, Portland and Vegas would need 4 million to match half of the Bay Area. Vegas would reach that late in 2044 ... Of course, by then, the Bay Area would be at 8.6 million ... long story short, it would be nearly 2060, before Vegas matched half of the Bay Area's population ... Portland wouldn't get there for over 100 years ...

Not that any of this means anything, since the past rarely dictates the future ... but no matter how you crack it, either the Bay Area is big enough for two, or there are no other areas that are big enough to support one.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By deajay on Thursday, November 04, 2004 - 01:57 pm:

Well, if you do contraction, Vegas and Portland aren't considerations. Contraction means the team is "disintegrated" while the remaining clubs would essentially "draft" the players in the contracted team's organization.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By bigthree17 on Thursday, November 04, 2004 - 02:04 pm:

DJ, you're misinterpreting what WK77 is saying. He's saying contraction is the only answer if the Bay Area can't support two teams because population-wise, one team in Portland or Vegas isn't any more viable than two teams in the Bay Area. Since moving them to Portland or Vegas wouldn't be any better, then contraction is the only option left.

I don't necessarily agree with this, because I think there's something to be said for being "the only game in town", as the A's would be in Vegas or Portland without competition from the Giants, but that's the argument he's making.

And no, I'm not advocating a move anywhere.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By whoknows77 on Thursday, November 04, 2004 - 02:31 pm:

B3 characterized my argument correctly ... and I'm really trying hard to keep all smart ass remarks to myself.

Being "the only game in town" hasn't done much for Tampa, Cincinatti, Pittsburgh, Minnesota, or Cleveland - all of which are larger Metros than Portland. Milwaukee and Kansas City are both larger than Vegas, as well ... neither of whom are doing especially well financially at the moment. Phoenix, at 3 million can barely support a team.

The only metro areas under 4 million that have effectively sustained a competetive payroll over the last decade are St Louis and Seattle. That isn't necessarily a magical line for success, though, as both Detroit and Miami have failed to support their single franchises adequately.

There is certainly something to be said for being the only show in town, but it's not enough to overcome the enormous gap in populations between the Bay Area and the next largest Metro (Portland) without a team.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By deajay on Thursday, November 04, 2004 - 02:33 pm:

"If the Bay Area isn't big enough for two teams, then there is only one option, contraction."

Not misinterpreting, just not a mind reader. But if that is what he is saying, I too have difficulty in believing that in the long run, Vegas could adequately support a team.

Conversely, I think Portland could support a team. But would they? Also, you are comparing two cities to the entire Bay Area? In the case of Portland, there are a number of cities within acceptable distances, which would also likely add to their support. That does not seem to be the case with Vegas, however, whose population seems to be largely transient, as well.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By bigthree17 on Thursday, November 04, 2004 - 03:30 pm:

WK, I should have clarified: I meant that I didn't necessarily agree because I didn't think your analysis was complete, because you assumed that a two-team market could just be divided in half.

I'm not saying a team would necessarily be successful in Vegas or Portland, I'm saying that just because the Bay Area has 6 million people, you can't automatically allocate 3 million to each team to conduct a population comparison analysis.

DJ, I don't think Vegas' population is "largely transient". People are moving in droves from California to Vegas (and parts of Arizona) because real estate is so much more affordable. It may have been the case before that people came and went quickly, but the real estate market there has attracted mainly long-term citizens. I don't know the Portland area at all but if there are other nearby cities there then you raise a valid point.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By whoknows77 on Thursday, November 04, 2004 - 04:58 pm:

DJ,

To quote myself,

"If the Bay Area isn't big enough for two teams, then there is only one option, contraction."

Then I go on to show how the other widely considered option is not viable.

I thought it would be clear enough when I said there is only one viable option, then explained how moving wouldn't work. I could have written it clearer, yes, but I assumed that you would give me enough credit to assume that I wouldn't be directly contradicting myself ... 'this is the only option that would work and here is how it wouldn't work.'

I am not comparing two cities, but two metropolitan areas to the Bay Area metropolitan area. I apologize, again for not being quite clear enough. All of the populations I quoted are for the greater metro areas.

B3,

You're right that the Bay Area's population doesn't just divide in half ... but for the most part, that is the most accurate way of looking at it. The great majority of those 6 million people don't have a whole lot of loyalty to either team, so they'll just go to whichever team gives them the best reason to go. I believe that most of them wouldn't attend many games if a single team was not an attractive draw. Perhaps having two teams makes the good times a little better and the bad times a little worse, but, on the whole, I would say that the great majority of fans can be competed for on a mostly equitable basis. (Things like park, ticket cost, team quality factor into teams competing for fans)

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By oaktownpat on Friday, November 05, 2004 - 12:10 am:

Hello! Why are we not talking about the media markets? After all, that is how the evil empire gets all their dough, remember?

Taking into consideration the way the media market is in the Bay Area, being the only game in town would be an important factor, IMHO.

However, looking at the numbers doesn't so much tell me that the Bay Area can't support 2 teams, but that somebody needs to get fired in the A's media department (or maybe Schott just decided he couldn't afford that deptment).

Seriously, with KNBR (the only Sports radio company in the Bay Area) and KTVU (the only major network regularly covering baseball - ironically the only one located in Oakland as well) covering the Giants, and the A's on KICU (3rd-class station) and KFRC (some oldies station), the A's media showing is just budget.

Who the hell are these people running our team? Piss poor man. 1,000(?) season ticket holders? Are you serious - you could probably get more season ticket holders for De La Salle high school football. Not that you can blame anybody for not buying season tickets, considering there is just about ZERO incentive (what, you get $1 off each ticket?).

This isn't just eminently depressing - its seemingly permanent. If I was a billionaire, I don't even know if I would buy the A's, because the whole situation is so broken (the City Gov't, the media market, the league, the MLBPA, the stadium, the fans).

At least we usually have the "at least we made the playoffs" argument to make us feel better. But given the collapse at the end of this season, the A's make me sick to think about right now.

Okay, I'm done rambling. I think I'll go cry now.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By linusalf on Friday, November 05, 2004 - 01:39 pm:

Bleah

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By oaktownfan on Friday, November 05, 2004 - 10:36 pm:

I agree, the media here is so biased towards teams in SF.

Like oaktownpat said, KTVU is the only major news station based in Oakland and it's so pro Giants/Niners. You got the station owning part of the Giants and the Niners play on there getting their own pregame and postgame show produced by the station. The damn opening credits for the news doesn't show anything representing Oakland, in fact, they show the city of SF in the credits for the end of the show. If you didn't know that KTVU was based near JLS, you'd think it was in the heart of downtown SF like the other stations are.

Both SF teams have the most powerful radio station behind them in KNBR and KGO.

The A's are on KICU, a third rate station here at best, and a radio station that stinks because the signal is too weak, not to mention Baun provides nothing to the show. At least KNBR has the likes of a Larry Kruger who will rip the team and ownership if it's warrented, when's the last time you heard Baun do that. Lurie and Babit are okay but you only get to hear them once a week during the baseball season, that's not enough.

Then the Raiders move from a very good signal in 1050 and then to a right winged station in 560 that has a less powerful signal. The Raiders are on channel five and the channel doesn't have their own local pregame show and you're lucky if they have a postgame show. Hell, the channel still has a show for the Niners on Saturday which is understand I guess because the Niners used to be broadcast on channel five before FOX bought the rights to the NFC.

I'm a Niners fan too and I can even see the bias towards them, even when they stunk and the Niners were a playoff team. There's no equality here and the one media source you'd think that would be pro Oakland would be the tribune and then you got this idiot Del Grande write that garbage piece earlier this weak. How did that get past the editor.


Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.


 

Questions? Comments? Corrections? Please contact info@oaklandfans.com.