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

Selig and Magowan continue to push for contraction and A's are still on the hitlist

OAFC BBS - All Topics: Archive: Selig and Magowan continue to push for contraction and A's are still on the hitlist
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By diamond_lil on Monday, July 08, 2002 - 07:52 pm:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36411-2002Jul7.html

One solution Selig favors is the elimination of the weak franchises, with Montreal, Oakland, Minnesota, Tampa Bay and Florida likely candidates. An arbitrator is expected to rule this month whether baseball can go ahead with contraction without input from the union on which teams would be eliminated. If he concludes that baseball can contract, Selig has said that he has nearly 30 votes in favor of it.

"I would like to see it go down from 30 teams," said Peter A. Magowan, managing general partner of the San Francisco Giants, who would stand to benefit if the Oakland Athletics across the bay left town. "The quality of baseball would improve and we wouldn't be subsidizing teams with no chance."

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By debbiet on Monday, July 08, 2002 - 08:13 pm:

I think that "fat guy who refused to leave the buffet line" metaphor applies to Magowan just as it does the Yankees...he's got his pretty new sold-out park, and lots of sponsors while sharing the market with the A's, yet he STILL wants them out. What a jerk.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By athleticsfan on Monday, July 08, 2002 - 08:18 pm:

The A's have to consent to being contracted. Selig can add to his list all he wants unless a team consents to being contracted, its all talk. If anything a team like the A's is the not the problem. The A's are NOT in debt and they are competitive, hardly a contraction canidate.

I can see why Magowan wants them contracted but will the Bay Area settle for only one team in the area when the Giants will be washed up team in a few years when Bonds retires and the spending of most of the revenues to pay off the HUGE DEBT on Pac Bell Park and not having any money left to put winning team on the field? The good fans of the Bay Area on going to want a team to fall back on and root for the emerging the A's take over the scene when the Giants are washed up.

I hope contraction doesn't happen but if does many analysts are saying the Royals maybe the AL Team that ends up getting contracted with the Expos.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By yc2578 on Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 12:55 am:

Montreal, Oakland, Minnesota, Tampa Bay and Florida...gee ya know what they all have in common? No new stadiums being built. It's all extortion people and we really need to stop buying in to it.

Oh and as for Magowan...go jump in McCovey Cove you greedy *bleep*. Remember he was the first owner to bring that word up back in that famous SI article in '99 where he so casually through the A's out there as to be contracted but only did as an anonymous owner. He's panicing now as if the Giants don't make the playoffs this year the team will likely be broken up and when Barry retires in a couple of years it'll be a ghost town at Pac Bell and his only hope is no competition in the Bay Area.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By tekgraf on Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 09:38 am:

f... pete. He knows that the A's and it's fans are far superior to his lousy giants. And to hell with that jackass Selig. What do you expect from a car salesmen!

Besides the Royals and A's will not be contracted nor will any other team.

Go A's, Go Dreyers Park!!!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By gregorymark on Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 09:48 am:

We can protest and scream all we want. Who's listening? Not Selig. Not Mayor Brown. Not the local media. Not Schott. They'll do what they want, and if the A's are on some short list of teams to be contracted, there is squat we can do about it. This is what's frustrating. Selig will execute his demented plan to improve baseball; Schott's bank account will bulge; and Magowan can let the quality of his team continue to slide because now he has a monopoly in the area.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By dorrit on Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 11:47 am:

Yes Gregory, it does appear that way-disgusting. So many fans have bailed out, and will continue to do so, as long as this crap goes on...

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By gregorymark on Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 12:01 pm:

Disclaimer: I love baseball. I love the A's. But I'm preparing myself, emotionally, for the worst. In a sport dominated by back-room deals and complacent players and media, the fans have no real voice, and one can only expect the worst.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By dorrit on Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 12:05 pm:

Agree..

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By athleticsfan on Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 01:25 pm:

If that lease gets sign, then that may take the A's off Selig's contraction list. Then again there is 90 day escape clause, which the owners may trigger if they don't get a new ballpark thereby putting the A's back on Selig's list.

You guys are right, if the A's get folded then Magowan would not feel as pressured to spend the moneny to field a competitive team since he would have a monopoly in the Bay Area. But again will the people of the Bay Area be happy with only one boring washed up team like Giants will become in the near future? I think not. Bay Areans are use to high standards in their sports teams and they are going to want to fall back on the Rising A's!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By athleticsfan on Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 01:26 pm:

If that lease gets sign, then that may take the A's off Selig's contraction list. Then again there is 90 day escape clause, which the owners may trigger if they don't get a new ballpark thereby putting the A's back on Selig's list.

You guys are right, if the A's get folded then Magowan would not feel as pressured to spend the money to field a competitive team since he would have a monopoly in the Bay Area. But again will the people of the Bay Area be happy with only one boring washed up team like Giants will become in the near future? I think not. Bay Areans are use to high standards in their sports teams and they are going to want to fall back on the Rising A's!

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By yc2578 on Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 01:51 pm:

The A's aren't gonna get folded people..."contraction" is just a buzz word to extort cities into building new ballparks. If they coudln't contract the Twins they won't be able to contract the A's.

Seriously what is with all the gloom and doom on these boards the past few days?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By kevink on Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 02:22 pm:

Well the A's just announced the lease deal with the Coliseum. It brings them through 2005 with options for 2006 and 2007. Schott was quoted as saying this should take the A's off Selig's radar screen for contraction.

Sounds like good news to me.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By gregorymark on Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 02:53 pm:

"will the people of the Bay Area be happy with only one boring washed up team like Giants will become in the near future?"

They were "happy" with one from '63-'67, before the A's showed up.....

Just out of curiousity, why would an extended lease to 2005 take the A's off of Selig's contraction list? I thought he was interested in forcing a new ballpark, not a lease in the old one.

Regardless, Magowan will continue to agitate for contraction.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By ronc on Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 03:33 pm:

The lease is till 2007 with three one year options till 2010

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By gregorymark on Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 04:22 pm:

Got it. Thanks for the clarification. But, still...how does this get the A's off of Selig's hypothetical contraction list? I'm sure Selig would rather see an agreement inked on a new ballpark than a lease extension on the old one.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By athleticsfan on Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 04:45 pm:

>>>I'm sure Selig would rather see an agreement inked on a new ballpark than a lease extention on the old one.<<<

The lease would give the A's a "window of time" to pursue their options of building a new ballpark in the East Bay, hence they have to play at the Net for the time being. I think the escape clause will be used if the A's can't get a new ballpark in the Bay Area.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By chris_d on Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 04:46 pm:

The lease extension is a building block to the new ballpark. This deal all by itself doesn't take us off the expansion list, but it's a big start in the right direction. A new Oakland ballpark is what is needed. That's why we're fighting for one.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By gregorymark on Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 05:00 pm:

Yes, I understand the rationale, chris, on the pursuit of a new ballpark. But, as athleticsfan suggests, now that a lease extension has been signed, Schott needs to come forward with a proposal of some sort -- if everyone's waiting on the City Fathers and Mothers, nothing will happen. How long should we hold our breath?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By eyleenn on Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 05:22 pm:

There was definitely an air of cooperation among the three men at the press conference today, Schott, Haggerty and DeLaFuente. DLF made the point that the A's had to take the lead, and I think Schott got the message. I am cautiously optimistic that the powers that be will be able to work together to create a ballpark deal.

I think everyone should take a deep breath, suspend judgment and stop ripping the owners until we see what happens in the next few months.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By jeffreyb on Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 09:01 pm:

i think the out clause makes the possibility of contraction easier. i really can't think of any reason the A's wanted a new lease other than this.

this is precisely the legal lesson that MLB attorneys learned from the Minnesota case.

"building block" is fuzzy thinking, imo.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By gregorymark on Tuesday, July 09, 2002 - 10:30 pm:

Your comment makes sense, Jeff. But I'm also heartened by your observation, Eyleenn. If Schott is beginning to "get it," none too soon.

BTW, anyone hear Schott on KNBR today? How did that go?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of pageLink to this message   By bleacherdave on Wednesday, July 10, 2002 - 01:16 pm:

he didn't say anything new.


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


 

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