Warriors Close to Moving

Discuss anything related to Golden State Warriors basketball here

Moderators: Mr. Crackerz, JREED, Guybrush, 32

User avatar

Moderator
Posts: 13751
» Mon May 28, 2012 9:17 pm
Okay, after reading the whole article, here's where I pinpoint my logic differing from the author:

He continually claims that the A's "gave" the Giants the rights to San Jose...

... But I'm not seeing where that happened along the timeline? So I'm wondering how the author believes the rights to San Jose were ever the A's to begin with? I'll try to reread it and see if I can find it, but that's a massive detail to be missing in this argument.

All Star
Posts: 1352
» Mon May 28, 2012 11:22 pm
It's understandable that they want a monopoly in this area, but I just don't approve. The A's tried to give up land for the Giants when they needed it, but the Giants ended up buying that land. We did the right thing for that time and we did in fact used to have that territory. And now that the fortunes are reversed, we are not being allowed to move to San Jose because like you said, the Giants want to keep their monopoly. The A's should have a right to fair competition in that area. I just don't feel the argument the Giants have a right to a monopoly.
User avatar

Starting Lineup
Posts: 707
» Tue May 29, 2012 3:12 am
Haven't read many of the previous posts, just wanna pop in my 2 cents here real quick ...

I love this move for a number of reasons

1. Hey Oakland, this is what you get for booing Lacob on Mullin's night ! :mrgreen:
2. SF = Free Agents more likely to sign = better team = happy fans
3. Blondie's pizza + Warriors game? hell ya. The scene will be so much cooler now. Game by the bay, hit the bars afterwards, etc. As opposed to in Oakland - go to the game....get out of Oakland asap lol
User avatar

Moderator
Posts: 13751
» Tue May 29, 2012 8:44 am
Blackfoot wrote:It's understandable that they want a monopoly in this area, but I just don't approve. The A's tried to give up land for the Giants when they needed it, but the Giants ended up buying that land. We did the right thing for that time and we did in fact used to have that territory. And now that the fortunes are reversed, we are not being allowed to move to San Jose because like you said, the Giants want to keep their monopoly. The A's should have a right to fair competition in that area. I just don't feel the argument the Giants have a right to a monopoly.

But that's just my point: he keeps alluding to the A's being the rightful owner of San Jose, but I can find no such resource to backup that claim - in the article or otherwise. Since that fact cannot be verified, it can't be used in the argument and my rationale remains the same.

I'm in no way advocating a monopoly, but you have to deal with places like New York City, the Bay Area, and Los Angeles different than, say, Cleveland or Orlando.

In New York, both baseball teams carry the NY moniker, but to make things easier to understand, let's just go by stadium and say the Yankees are from the Bronx and the Mets are from south Queens. If the Yankees wanted to move their stadium to Brooklyn, you can bet that the Mets would take issue with that because they practically own South New York. And if they then asked to move to Manhatten, all hell would break lose because Manhatten literally divides the territory. To inherit the border is, in effect, to expand your territory. I wouldn't blame either NY team trying to veto a move to Manhatten by their opposition:

Image

And that's exactly what's happening in the Bay. To me, San Jose, Santa Clara, Milpitas... It should all be off limits. It's literally the dividing point in the territory:

Image

San Jose is the exact border of both team's territory, the Southern tip of both West and East Bay. The Giants aren't trying to monopolize the Bay, they're simply trying to keep their territory as large as the A's. What's the problem with Berkeley or Fremont or Hayward? Why, exactly, are the A's so intent on getting out of the east bay?

All Star
Posts: 1352
» Tue May 29, 2012 4:15 pm
It's not as even as you make it out to be. I tried to find other visual aids, but this is basically the best thing I could find.


Image
User avatar

All Star
Posts: 1119
» Tue May 29, 2012 4:57 pm
what is up with all this baseball talk?
User avatar

Moderator
Posts: 13751
» Tue May 29, 2012 10:55 pm
Blackfoot wrote:It's not as even as you make it out to be. I tried to find other visual aids, but this is basically the best thing I could find.


Image

Yeah, I was disregarding Monterey county because... Well... I didn't think SF (or Oakland, for that matter) had territorial rights that were more than 2 hours away. :dontknow: That's like saying Sacramento is Giants country. I think it exaggerates the idea of the A's lack of stomping ground in the Bay Area; especially since it conveniently leaves out Solano and Napa counties from the A's tally of Bay Area territory.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. If accountants can cook books for audits, the A's can certainly try and exaggerate the amount of Giant's clout in the Bay amidst their attempt to build a new stadium. I didn't hear any A's fans or spokespeople pining about territory boundaries before this stadium issue...

Rookie
Posts: 3
» Wed May 30, 2012 8:23 am
User avatar

Moderator
Posts: 13751
» Wed May 30, 2012 8:35 am
Pretty much a recap article for the thread we already have going.
User avatar

All Star
Posts: 3618
» Wed May 30, 2012 6:42 pm
lock this mother down.

Rookie
Posts: 3
» Thu May 31, 2012 9:35 am
To the Moderators:

Please don't shut down a thread because a poster requests it. I think that's undemocratic.

Thank you.

NN
User avatar

Moderator
Posts: 13751
» Thu May 31, 2012 10:47 am
I don't mind the link; I just suggest we move it to within our already established thread on the Warriors moving to SF. I liked the read; I was just observing that its basically a recap of what we're discussing in our thread. There's no reason to have 2 additional redundant threads when we already have one going strong on the subject at hand.

Nels, you're the original poster in this thread. What's your take on the article?

Rookie
Posts: 3
» Thu May 31, 2012 11:46 am
I was referring to 8th Ave, but not with angry or disrespectful intent.

I like your idea to incorporate it into an existing thread. So let's do that. It sounds like a good idea.

My take is that it brought some of the emotion around this issue to the fore. I also liked the breakdown on how many things could go wrong and reporting on that video where these owners smeared Oakland.

Thank you.
User avatar

Moderator
Posts: 2442
» Thu May 31, 2012 5:02 pm
There you go guys.
User avatar

Moderator
Posts: 13751
» Thu May 31, 2012 9:29 pm
Thanks Guy!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests